Buddha Head Found amid New Excavation Efforts in Gujarat, India

[AfrazulMandal]

Seldom, in the entire history of India until the 11th century, has there been any record of religious prosecution

That is deeply offensive. There were wars before. And after. The Muslim rule brought peace, egalitarianism and civilization.

Please read up on Bakhtiyar Khalji's non-violent approach to the Buddhist universities at Nalanda and Odandapura.

That was war. Unfortunate. But bad things happen in war. If people really needed them, they would have rebuilt it already.

second factoid that might astonish you is that a national commission on communal riots recorded its astonishment at more than half the number having been initiated by the smaller community.

This is a ridiculous allegation. How can Muslims initiate riots against a population that outnumbers them?
We dont own Vedic weapons of mass destruction.

Muslims in India are anything but weak and subservient; I cannot, being secular and antipathetic to religious extremists myself, walk in any of these except on sufferance: the Malappuram area in Kerala; Russell Market and Johnson Market in Bengaluru; the Char Minar area in Hyderabad; Watgunge, Park Circus and Topsia in Calcutta; almost all of Malda district

Yes. People here are actually allergic to neo Hindutva intellectuals. That may explain it.

organised itself against Muslims on a systematic basis; the possibility of a Muslim riot is still possible, but retribution is swift and vicious.

Retribution? Or genocide?

 

[Tshering22]

Some members here believe that because most Buddhists do not worship idols

Not even the Hindus worship idols.

The Arab and European wannabes actually assume that people actually make something to worship it.

The Hindus have a prayer called 'avahanam' or 'prana pratishtha' in Sanskrit. It is a prayer which they say as the first one when they get a new statue to their house. That prayer invites a portion of their faith in the idol and hence allows them to use the idol as a visual representative of their faith in the avatar of god they believe in.

This is something Abrahamics don't understand, since almost all the three of them were essentially political codes of tribal conquest, resource amalgamation and consolidation of power.

 

[Mugwop]

Nah. Don't think so.
Usually butparast people flock together.
We are the usual enemy.

There may be exceptions.

Sure butparast people stick together as per history

 

[Agnihotra]

Nothing surprising.

3 things I want to add to this thread.

1) buddha was a Kshatriya from Greater Bihar region.

2) buddhist used to worship same gods as Hindus and even used sanskrit as their language beside pali.

3) buddha tried to be like a brahmin despite being a kshatriya and failed to impress us, yet some of the finest Buddhist scripts were written in Sanskrit by brahmins who followed his ideas.

 

[Mugwop]

Buddhists don't have temples, they have stupas, the structures around their equivalent of a dargah. Hindus have temples. The temples in the Indus Valley are Hindu.



Another alternative is to read up on the archaeology and on historical records; there are ample.



There were Buddhists in the deep south, in the Sindh, and in the north, in the hills; elsewhere, during the 9th century Hindu revival, they had been re-converted. One of the influences of this conversion was Shankaracharya, who went up and down the sub-continent, challenging the major pundits of the Buddhists to open theological debates held by the elaborate rules then prevailing. His arguments prevailed; the rulers started wondering: Buddhism is that paradox, a rational faith, and the rational arguments of Shankaracharya prevailing cut at the root of the faith of the rulers. The rulers reconverted; the people followed.

If you come and visit the Ajanta and Ellora caves, and dig up their history from any useful text, you will find that they were, in succession, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain (@jbgt90). So, too, the temple at Tirupati is seen by scholars as conversion of an originally Buddhist shrine to a Hindu temple. The priests and their followers will not readily agree to this; you have to ask the academics.



Yes, and has a Muslim population that grows and prospers, in spite of having a majority Hindu administration; the two nation theory that founded Pakistan had predicted that the Muslim population would be depleted under Hindu rule. Strangely, more Muslims died in Pakistan due to terror than died in India.



Not a problem: when you gotta go, you gotta go.



Seldom, in the entire history of India until the 11th century, has there been any record of religious prosecution.



Please read up on Bakhtiyar Khalji's non-violent approach to the Buddhist universities at Nalanda and Odandapura.





If it isn't too gross a subject for you, please could you mention this to @Rusty, who thinks that all Buddhists had been converted back into Hinduism before the Muslims came?

I would but the topic is about archaeology not Abrahamic religions or religious conflicts.

 

[Republic]

I don't have to. You're doing it yourself.

I am not going to waste my breath on someone who thinks that Sanskrit literature was written in British era and propagated.

FYI, Mahayana sutras itself were written in Sanskrit and this was at a time when the Brits were wearing bear skins and ravaging each other like two-legged animals in tribes. Let alone the language of Sanskrit

Why ? Because you don't have any valid evidence ?
You tell me, what should I or any educated person should infer if it has been written in the 'Bhavishy Purana' that there will be rule of Queen Victoria in Hindustan ? That this is a miracle ? It can predict future events so accurately ?
Moreover, when it's oldest available copy is not older than two centuries ??
I have not said that all of its literature has been written in British era, I have said most of it.

Mahayana sect is newer than Hinyana. It's literature was written for for latter when Aryans were infiltrating and manipulating Buddhist ideology. Thats why Mahayana sect has deviated from Buddha's teachings. Tell me one available Mahayana book/inscription older than 2nd CE written in Sanskrit ??

You seem to be confusing Devanagari with Sanskrit.

Sanskrit for most of its history was a verbal language - knowledge was passed down from teacher to student and onward.

If you're talking about written Devanagari, I agree that the script is not as old as Pali itself.
But to say that Sanskrit is newer than Pali as a language, sorry mate. That is incorrect.

I am not confusing anything buddy. Rather you are not ready to accept any thing against your beliefs, your whole life teachings; just like Pakistanis. Otherwise why only Sanskrit is the only language in the whole world which was not being written in any form where as Pali and Prakrit and Aramaic were being written frequently around it ?
And Pali is not a script, it is language. Script is Brahmi and Dewnagri and mixture of both.
If you will dig deeper, you will find that there are many archeological and written records available regarding Many Buddhas before Gautam Buddha.

Regards.

Nothing surprising.

3 things I want to add to this thread.

1) buddha was a Kshatriya from Greater Bihar region.

There was no 'vernashram' in that era. This invention was brought by Iranians like Pushyamitra Shunga and his followers.

2) buddhist used to worship same gods as Hindus and even used sanskrit as their language beside pali.

Who told you ? Books of Mahayana sect ?
Buddhist never worshiped any Aryan(so called Hindu) God's. There was no language called Sanskrit in those times.
It evolved as a pidgin language from Avestan Persian and Pali, just like Urdu,
It's earlier literature is very crude and it attained classical status only in fourth and fifth century.

3) buddha tried to be like a brahmin despite being a kshatriya and failed to impress us, yet some of the finest Buddhist scripts were written in Sanskrit by brahmins who followed his ideas.

With due respect, every thing you have written is a lie.
Regards.
Republic.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now is the time to start giving a thought again to this theory.

Actually this theory that Veda, Sankhya, Yoga and other philosophies are older than Buddhism is based on some fiction like stories which itself have no solid proof of its existence. Certainly there is no archeological proof. Nothing at all.

And that is why there are many anomalies exsits on this theory.

First of all, No inscription in Sanskrit has ever been found older than Pali, Brahmi and Aramaic. Not even of hundred or two hundred years later.

The answer which was given by proponents of antiquity of Vedas that these have been preserved through oral recitation and not in written form.
How it is possible that every thing around you is being written in inscription and you are constantly not using written form of language ?

Every puzzle is solved if you accept that Sanskrit is a pidgin language like Urdu and Hindi and is evolved after second century CE. It is a mixture of old Persian and Pali. Pali and Prakrit have not evolved from Sanskrit, it is just opposite. Sanskrit has evolved from Pali and Prakrit.

One more thing. Buddhist theology is for for older than Gautam Buddha. It goes upto Indus civilization. There are several solid archeological evidence scattered around Indian subcontinent of this fact. But Aryan historians have constantly overlooking/suppressing/intentionally misinterpreting and destroying these evidences to peddle the theory of antiquity of Vedas and other Aryan mythologies.

While I remain an admirer of your forthright and clearly stated positions, you are on very weak ground from this post onwards. Even our despised @sankranti has stated things better; stated them exactly in line with consensus views of the subject, in fact.

You have made assertions that are dependent entirely on your beliefs or those of others, and are not to be found anywhere else; not in archaeological remains, not in linguistic evidence, and not in thematic analysis of ancient texts.

I would but the topic is about archaeology not Abrahamic religions or religious conflicts.

The discussion precisely follows the trail of the archaeological remains and their origins, and explanations of their origins. Either you have not followed the argument, or you wish not to follow the argument, since it clashes with your pet beliefs. Either way it makes no difference.

 

[Tshering22]

It's literature was written for for latter when Aryans were infiltrating and manipulating Buddhist ideology.

Aryans eh?

That's pretty much my cue.

Thanks. I am not going to waste my time on you.

 

[Republic]

While I remain an admirer of your forthright and clearly stated positions, you are on very weak ground from this post onwards. Even our despised.

Sir,
With due respect, I am not a scholar but an avid book reader, any kind of book.
But what I have said is not merely on belief. I have solid evidences, inscriptions as well as literature.
The fact is main line historians have been deliberately ignoring and misinterpreting these. Many historians have stated these evidences but to be ignored and side lined.

Now I will try to put forth evidences as I have found these and request you to put your comments. I know you are a great scholar and your words meant a lot to me.
So here I go....

Even an amateur reader of Indian inscriptions can easily tell that Inscriptions before Christ like Mauryan's and Satwahna's are in Prakrit.

You can not find a single inscription in Classical Sanskrit in this era. Please rebutt me if you can.

Inscriptions around the time of Christ like Shaka's and Kushana's Inscriptions of Mathura are in pidgin Sanskrit.

And inscriptions after Christ like of Rudra daman and Samudragupta are in classical Sanskrit.

It is not a coincidence that this pidgin Sanskrit was being written in the inscriptions, as well as in literature also. In this literature phonetics of words have specially been moulded into Sanskrit, but grammar used is that of pure Prakrit.
If Sanskrit would have been older than Prakrit and Pali, this pidgin Sanskrit would have been used in inscriptions and literature at least 3 to 4 hundred years before Prakrit, and not 3 to 4 hundred years after it.
Please go through the pages of the books of Mr T Burro

And of Mr Bhola Nath Tiwari.

I hope you can read Hindi. You can also search for these books in Government library. Now sir, counter it with your evidences. I am ready to grasp your thoughts and change my line.
Regards.

Aryans eh?

That's pretty much my cue.

Thanks. I am not going to waste my time on you.

Thank you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir,
With due respect, I am not a scholar but an avid book reader, any kind of book.
But what I have said is not merely on belief. I have solid evidences, inscriptions as well as literature.
The fact is main line historians have been deliberately ignoring and misinterpreting these. Many historians have stated these evidences but to be ignored and side lined.

Now I will try to put forth evidences as I have found these and request you to put your comments. I know you are a great scholar and your words meant a lot to me.
So here I go....

Even an amateur reader of Indian inscriptions can easily tell that Inscriptions before Christ like Mauryan's and Satwahna's are in Prakrit.
View attachment 540348
You can not find a single inscription in Classical Sanskrit in this era. Please rebutt me if you can.

Inscriptions around the time of Christ like Shaka's and Kushana's Inscriptions of Mathura are in pidgin Sanskrit.
View attachment 540349

And inscriptions after Christ like of Rudra daman and Samudragupta are in classical Sanskrit.

View attachment 540350
It is not a coincidence that this pidgin Sanskrit was being written in the inscriptions, as well as in literature also. In this literature phonetics of words have specially been moulded into Sanskrit, but grammar used is that of pure Prakrit.
If Sanskrit would have been older than Prakrit and Pali, this pidgin Sanskrit would have been used in inscriptions and literature at least 3 to 4 hundred years before Prakrit, and not 3 to 4 hundred years after it.
Please go through the pages of the books of Mr T Burro
View attachment 540351
And of Mr Bhola Nath Tiwari.
View attachment 540354 I hope you can read Hindi. You can also search for these books in Government library. Now sir, counter it with your evidences. I am ready to grasp your thoughts and change my line.
Regards.



Thank you.

LOL.

There is no need to go to such lengths; only a re-statement of the historical reconstruction of the development of modern Indian languages is necessary.

Our languages today were NOT descended from Sanskrit; only those who have a merely superficial understanding argue that. Instead, it is clear that the classic Vedic language, Indo-Aryan, for lack of anything better (Vedic Sanskrit is a highly misleading term), became the working language Prakrit by around 600 BC or so. Modern Indian languages are considered to have descended from two dialects of Prakrit, the eastern languages from Magadhi, the western from Suraseni.

Sanskrit came nowhere in the picture, for one thing, because it was in the process of being codified from Indo-Aryan by a grammarian named Panini, roughly around the same time, 600 BC (exact dates are impossible to establish, because of the lack of written records, and because names, personalities, life-spans, and events are all derived indirectly). What Panini did is worth investigating, rather than jumping to the wrong conclusions: he took the late version of Indo-Aryan, that was spoken in the Punjab and before the movement of the centre of political power to Magadha from the older centres of Indo-Aryan civilisation, the Kuru-Panchal territory, and standardised it. He took archaic verb forms, eliminated the archaic forms no longer in use in late versions of Indo-Aryan, and he took unused and obsolete nouns and eliminated those also. A comparison of the Vedic language, the language (here referred to as Indo-Aryan) of the Vedas, and of 'classical' Sanskrit will show the changes.

About scripts and languages: Kharoshthi and Brahmi were both scripts; they had NOTHING to do with language. They were both derived from middle eastern scripts, in all probabililty Aramaic, and the descent of Kharosthi from Aramaic can be readily traced and explained, especially as there is no 'development' of Kharosthi, it appears in fully developed form straightaway. Kharosthi was largely a north-western language, being used for Prakrit (specifically, for a variant known as Gandhari Prakrit) and Pali; these were the languages of the court and administration of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC.

The next bit is important: the earliest manuscripts of the Buddhists are estimated to date to the 1st century BC. It is important because the first inscriptions (in Kharosthi) are dated to Ashoka's reign, 268 to 232 BC, nearly a hundred and fifty years earlier. It is true, of course, that manuscripts are written on material that decays and vanishes; rock edicts, on rock pillars, are far more lasting.

We can now look at your observations of two or three posts ago.

 

[Agnihotra]

Aryans eh?

That's pretty much my cue.

Thanks. I am not going to waste my time on you.

dude claims that Aryans manipulated his religion and Sanskrit is recent language. retard dosnt even know how proud Buddha was of his Kshatriya Blood and tried to elevate his caste to Brahmins on Spiritual level as well.

he claims that all next buddhas will take birth in either Brahmin and Kshatriya families and as he was born in kshatriya family, next buddha will come from Brahmin family. "while on spiritual level all people are similar on material level Brahmins and kshatriyas are indeed superior to others on this earthly realm" - word of his highness.

if you think that Aryans at that time suddenly started marrying aboriginals and seeing them their equal for some flimsy reason like a guy claims that we are all equal you are living in Lala land.

 

[Mugwop]

While I remain an admirer of your forthright and clearly stated positions, you are on very weak ground from this post onwards. Even our despised @sankranti has stated things better; stated them exactly in line with consensus views of the subject, in fact.

You have made assertions that are dependent entirely on your beliefs or those of others, and are not to be found anywhere else; not in archaeological remains, not in linguistic evidence, and not in thematic analysis of ancient texts.



The discussion precisely follows the trail of the archaeological remains and their origins, and explanations of their origins. Either you have not followed the argument, or you wish not to follow the argument, since it clashes with your pet beliefs. Either way it makes no difference.

You are right about one thing I didn't wanna follow the argument but cobra drags me into it but I am curious what pet beliefs of mines are you talking about?

 

[Republic]

LOL.

There is no need to go to such lengths; only a re-statement of the historical reconstruction of the development of modern Indian languages is necessary.

Our languages today were NOT descended from Sanskrit; only those who have a merely superficial understanding argue that. Instead, it is clear that the classic Vedic language, Indo-Aryan, for lack of anything better (Vedic Sanskrit is a highly misleading term), became the working language Prakrit by around 600 BC or so. Modern Indian languages are considered to have descended from two dialects of Prakrit, the eastern languages from Magadhi, the western from Suraseni.

Sanskrit came nowhere in the picture, for one thing, because it was in the process of being codified from Indo-Aryan by a grammarian named Panini, roughly around the same time, 600 BC (exact dates are impossible to establish, because of the lack of written records, and because names, personalities, life-spans, and events are all derived indirectly). What Panini did is worth investigating, rather than jumping to the wrong conclusions: he took the late version of Indo-Aryan, that was spoken in the Punjab and before the movement of the centre of political power to Magadha from the older centres of Indo-Aryan civilisation, the Kuru-Panchal territory, and standardised it. He took archaic verb forms, eliminated the archaic forms no longer in use in late versions of Indo-Aryan, and he took unused and obsolete nouns and eliminated those also. A comparison of the Vedic language, the language (here referred to as Indo-Aryan) of the Vedas, and of 'classical' Sanskrit will show the changes.

About scripts and languages: Kharoshthi and Brahmi were both scripts; they had NOTHING to do with language. They were both derived from middle eastern scripts, in all probabililty Aramaic, and the descent of Kharosthi from Aramaic can be readily traced and explained, especially as there is no 'development' of Kharosthi, it appears in fully developed form straightaway. Kharosthi was largely a north-western language, being used for Prakrit (specifically, for a variant known as Gandhari Prakrit) and Pali; these were the languages of the court and administration of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC.

The next bit is important: the earliest manuscripts of the Buddhists are estimated to date to the 1st century BC. It is important because the first inscriptions (in Kharosthi) are dated to Ashoka's reign, 268 to 232 BC, nearly a hundred and fifty years earlier. It is true, of course, that manuscripts are written on material that decays and vanishes; rock edicts, on rock pillars, are far more lasting.

We can now look at your observations of two or three posts ago.

So... now we have at least one point to agree, that Prakrit is not derived/evolved from Sanskrit as they teach in our schools.
It is also proved that I am not on as weak ground as you said. Now come to your another counter argument.

You said that Sanskrit was evolving separately from Prakrit. But you have not given any evidence and also not any logic or reason for this argument.
If you think logically, it is not possible that if a language was being used in any era for a sufficient period, it must have not left any evidence. Let's assume for the argument sake that manuscripts were destroyed. But where are inscriptions ? Is it possible that a language was being used only in manuscripts and not in inscriptions ?
And when it started mingling with Prakrit then it must have changed and gone towards more Prakritized version over the natural course of period ??
But as we can see, there are tons of evidences indicating that it was Prakrit which was continuously deteriorating into Sanskrit and not vice versa.

Now, what is the logic behind the statement that Sanskrit is the pidgin language ?
Well... It is a pidgin of Old Persian and Prakrit/Pali. You can see from inscriptions that pidgin form of Sanskrit first evolved in the area of Iranian bordering area, i.e. present Pakistan (KPK area to be precise)
If you study the inscriptions, you will find that where DHAMMA(धम्म) was written in Ashoka's inscriptions of Northern India, it was being written as DHRAMA (ध्रम) in the Shahbaz Gadhi (Peshawar) inscriptions. This DHRAMA was later evolved as DHARMA (धर्म) in Rudra damana's inscriptions.
Where PIYADASI (पियदसी) has been written in Ashoka's Northern Indian inscriptions, it was being written as PRIYADRASHI (प्रियद्रशि) in Shahbaz Gadhi inscriptions, and later evolved as PRIYADRASHI (प्रियदर्शी) in Rudradaman's inscriptions.
Thus, we can see that DHAMMA was evolved into DHRAMA in pidgin Sanskrit and later converted into DHARMA as classical Sanskrit. In the same manner PIYADASI made its journey through PRIYADRASHI in pidgin version upto PRIYDARSHI as classical Sanskrit.

PS: Panini was Rajpurohit of Pushymitra Shunga as par Rahul Sankrityayan. He was never there before Shungas as per logic and reasoning. Because...

If he would have codified Sanskrit in 500 BC, we would have not seen pidgin version of Sanskrit in later ages inscriptions.
Regards.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So... now we have at least one point to agree, that Prakrit is not derived/evolved from Sanskrit as they teach in our schools.
It is also proved that I am not on as weak ground as you said. Now come to your another counter argument.

Stating that Prakrit and Sanskrit developed in parallel, that Prakrit was not 'descended' from Sanskrit was not the weak ground that you were on. They are on display in the rest of your note below.

You said that Sanskrit was evolving separately from Prakrit. But you have not given any evidence and also not any logic or reason for this argument.

I did not say that. I said, very clearly, that Sanskrit was a one-man show:

Sanskrit came nowhere in the picture, for one thing, because it was in the process of being codified from Indo-Aryan by a grammarian named Panini, roughly around the same time, 600 BC (exact dates are impossible to establish, because of the lack of written records, and because names, personalities, life-spans, and events are all derived indirectly). What Panini did is worth investigating, rather than jumping to the wrong conclusions: he took the late version of Indo-Aryan, that was spoken in the Punjab and before the movement of the centre of political power to Magadha from the older centres of Indo-Aryan civilisation, the Kuru-Panchal territory, and standardised it. He took archaic verb forms, eliminated the archaic forms no longer in use in late versions of Indo-Aryan, and he took unused and obsolete nouns and eliminated those also. A comparison of the Vedic language, the language (here referred to as Indo-Aryan) of the Vedas, and of 'classical' Sanskrit will show the changes.

I hope you get the picture.

The second advice I will give you is to stop thinking logically, on first principles, and to start thinking in terms of the actual occurrences and historical evidence that is available.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but you have fallen into the error of the revisionists, who have come to their own 'first-principles' reasons for concluding, without grounds, various erroneous reconstructions of history. Unfortunately Clio does not follow straight-line logic; she wanders around as she will and things happen as they do, not as they ought to have.

If you think logically, it is not possible that if a language was being used in any era for a sufficient period, it must have not left any evidence. Let's assume for the argument sake that manuscripts were destroyed. But where are inscriptions ? Is it possible that a language was being used only in manuscripts and not in inscriptions ?

If you disengage your Brahminical sense of logic and development of argument, and place your feet on the ground, you will realise without being prompted that a popular inscription will be in the demotic versions of the languages and dialects being used.

Sanskrit was a reconstruction, not a living language, a reconstruction from a language and a style that had already passed into history. It was obviously not suitable for use in inscriptions.

Again, you have concluded that there may have been Sanskrit manuscripts. That is a dangerous conclusion. The holy books were carefully preserved by the priests and restricted in their circulation, as it is even today. If you search for his posts by name, you will find that a member named @IFB has given an excellent review of the state of Hindu scripture even today, that applies forcefully to that period and to the usage then, a usage that has descended unbroken down to the current holders of the knowledge of the Vedas.

The use of manuscript for the holy books, therefore of the 'holy' language, or of the codified version of the original 'holy' language as well as the original, was minimal, if it existed at all.

And when it started mingling with Prakrit then it must have changed and gone towards more Prakritized version over the natural course of period ??
But as we can see, there are tons of evidences indicating that it was Prakrit which was continuously deteriorating into Sanskrit and not vice versa.

LOL.

You have a fine mind and your teachers must have had a very pleasant time teaching you....once they got you to look at facts and come away from purely mental reconstructions.

I re-state the evidence and the status once more: Sanskrit was a language codified with very well-defined rules of grammar, done with a skill and complete command over the subject that astonished linguists and grammarians centuries after he worked.

It was not susceptible to grammatical changes, at all. There have been NO changes in Sanskrit grammar from the Ashtadhyayi onwards.

This codification was done on a living language, Indo-Aryan, that changed over the centuries; that was a strong motive for Panini to undertake his work of codification and to fix the rules once and for all time to come.

So, too, was Prakrit a living language, that never had much effort dedicated to it, because it was the people's language, not the language that the Gods spoke. It moved around; its grammar changed.

THAT is why Prakrit moved closer to Sanskrit, and not the other way around.

TO BE CONTINUED

Now, what is the logic behind the statement that Sanskrit is the pidgin language ?
Well... It is a pidgin of Old Persian and Prakrit/Pali. You can see from inscriptions that pidgin form of Sanskrit first evolved in the area of Iranian bordering area, i.e. present Pakistan (KPK area to be precise)
If you study the inscriptions, you will find that where DHAMMA(धम्म) was written in Ashoka's inscriptions of Northern India, it was being written as DHRAMA (ध्रम) in the Shahbaz Gadhi (Peshawar) inscriptions. This DHRAMA was later evolved as DHARMA (धर्म) in Rudra damana's inscriptions.
Where PIYADASI (पियदसी) has been written in Ashoka's Northern Indian inscriptions, it was being written as PRIYADRASHI (प्रियद्रशि) in Shahbaz Gadhi inscriptions, and later evolved as PRIYADRASHI (प्रियदर्शी) in Rudradaman's inscriptions.
Thus, we can see that DHAMMA was evolved into DHRAMA in pidgin Sanskrit and later converted into DHARMA as classical Sanskrit. In the same manner PIYADASI made its journey through PRIYADRASHI in pidgin version upto PRIYDARSHI as classical Sanskrit.

PS: Panini was Rajpurohit of Pushymitra Shunga as par Rahul Sankrityayan. He was never there before Shungas as per logic and reasoning. Because...

If he would have codified Sanskrit in 500 BC, we would have not seen pidgin version of Sanskrit in later ages inscriptions.
Regards.

 

[Republic]

I did not say that. I said, very clearly, that Sanskrit was a one-man show:
I hope you get the picture.

Where is the evidence ?

you have fallen into the error of the revisionists, who have come to their own 'first-principles' reasons for concluding, without grounds, various erroneous reconstructions of history.

Sir, I would have been great full if you have shown me any evidence or ground of your own instead of declaring me revisionist.

Sanskrit was a reconstruction, not a living language, a reconstruction from a language and a style that had already passed into history. It was obviously not suitable for use in inscriptions.

Are you serious ??? Can you explain this ridiculous point ???
As in my opinion, writing an inscription is related to a script, and not to a language.

Again, you have concluded that there may have been Sanskrit manuscripts. That is a dangerous conclusion.

I was accepting your argument in that phrase, that "manuscripts are prone to damage"; and has given a counter argument. I accept that my English is not good, but certainly it is not as bad as you can not comprehend it properly.
So...
Where are those 500 BC eras manuscripts ?

The use of manuscript for the holy books, therefore of the 'holy' language, or of the codified version of the original 'holy' language as well as the original, was minimal, if it existed at all.

Do you still believe in the crap of Holy or God's language or God's book ??? Or you sir, are a willfull propagater ??

I re-state the evidence and the status once more: Sanskrit was a language codified with very well-defined rules of grammar, done with a skill and complete command over the subject.
It was not susceptible to grammatical changes, at all. There have been NO changes in Sanskrit grammar from the Ashtadhyayi onwards.

If that is the case and he codified it in 500 BC, then how it changed in Kanishka's era ???? Or you are unable to digest the fact he was not in 500 BC and was in Shunga's court ?? Because from there on only, you will not find a single change in Sanskrit grammar. Apart from that Rahul Sankrityayan has clearly stated that he was in Pushymitra Shunga's court. There are two or three more references establishing this fact. Please counter it.

So, too, was Prakrit a living language, that never had much effort dedicated to it, because it was the people's language, not the language that the Gods spoke.
TO BE CONTINUED

Sir, Please leave this God's language for God sake, and start sharing evidences or give a valid reason at least. So far you have been "declaring" same narative again and again, with out any proof.In the hope of some evidence and reasoning.
Regards.