Printable View
Namaste,
Some people have a more potent grasp of Ancient Indian history away from the mainstream presentation of events. I have a simple question.
Which combination of factors lead to the decline of Sanskrit and what was the most prominent?
Was it colonialism or something else?
Before India was invaded was Sanskrit used actively/
Namaste,
I don't have the foggiest idea about what you are asking, but this much is for sure, that Sanskrit was not the language of the common man on the street at 2500BCE. I say that because Buddha is said to have given his sermon in the language of the day, Paali. That was the common street language and he chose to give his sermon in the simplest and the most common language so that masses could get his message, instead of just a select group of highly educated Sanskrit priests. So, the decline must have started long before that as Paali had already become the de facto street language by then. This is all factual since I witnessed it happen. :) Younger folks in the forum who weren't around at that time may have different concocted stories.
Pranam.
While you are just making a guess work, what kind of value addition does this quoted statement offer to this post?Quote:
This is all factual since I witnessed it happen.
Younger folks in the forum who
weren't around at that time may have different concocted stories.
Humor is fine, but why does it peak when ever you see the word Sanskrit or Invasion :-) ;-)
I know you wanted to prove us a thing or two. Atleast I don't want to disappoint you. I believe you fully believer ji that you witnessed what you wrote here :-)
Namaste,
I have a different view. 1000 yrs ago, when there were no buses, trains or cars, Acharyas like Sri Ramanujacharya have travelled 1000's of miles to Kashmir from TamilNadu and spoken to the king of Kashmir. He even travelled to Delhi and spoke to the Sultan's people. He held discourses and debates with many learned scholars living in diverse parts of India. Similarly Sri AdiSankara Bhagavadpada has travelled all over India, from North to South India and established many procedures for deity worship. These acharyas not only spoke to the Brahmanas, the kings and his men, but travelling by foot all the way, they have spoken to common men as well. All this shows to me, Sanskrit must have been very much in practice commonly.
Thanks.
Namaste,
That does intrigue me quite a bit Viraja. Even the Gaudiya Vaishnavas from Bengal traveled to Southern parts of Bharat and had discourses with the brilliant Vaishnavas of the day. But is it too far fetched to think that the acharyas/swamis traveled in the company of their devotees and interacted only with other evolved souls in Sanskrit, and their devotees were the ones who interacted with the common people in their native tongues? Of course this is all speculation on my part. But we do see the people on a higher plane, unwilling or unable to come down to the level of common man for their sermons. They may take part in puja and chanting with everyone, but the spiritual discourse part is limited to other evolved souls only. What to speak of the great Acharyas, beginner level people are generally ignored/shunned even by the ones who have little bit more scriptural knowledge than us.
Perhaps somebody with a better sense of history of Sanskrit might come along to enlighten us with documented facts about its decline.
Pranam.
:) . True, between the 2 noble goals of elevating the souls of the already-on-the-path and that of those other weaklings, I see the second option nobler. If not, we do not need so many 'bashyams' written by various acharyas to works like Bhagawath Gita, Brahmasutras and so forth. Swamis like Vivekananda are remembered even today because of their appeal to the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Believer
m.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/tale-of-two-villages/article4581221.ece/
:-)