5 ms·

Same book page 21: "But there are evidences to show that to all intents and purposes, Sanskrit was a living language and view that it was spoken by at least a

by lake99 11y ago

Same book page 21: "But there are evidences to show that to all intents and purposes, Sanskrit was a living language and view that it was spoken by at least a large section of the people." The author then writes a more nuanced answer. > This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). This, while possibly true, is misleading in this context. All it means is that Sanskrit was on its way out by that time period, and in that region. It does not square with your previous claim that Sanskrit was never spoken by the masses. As another factor of note, we are talking about a large geographic region and a large time period. I am not even sure what qualifies as "Prakrit". If it just means "vernacular", it would still qualify as Sanskrit. As you mentioned previously, Kannada has at least four dialects. Raichur Kannada sounds quite different from the Kannada of textbooks or news reports. But it's still considered Kannada. Can we use a similar approach to consider Prakrit as just a dialect of Sanskrit? I don't know. I am neither a linguist, nor a Sanskrit historian.

shas3 11y ago
Prakrit is not one language. I was careful to use it as 'Prakrits'. Given the formality of Sanskrit, I seriously doubt Prakrits can be considered its dialects. In fact, the relationship probably goes the other way- Sanskrit is a formalized version of the Prakrits that people spoke. In fact, the names are descriptive and are indicative of the relationship: Prakrit has the same root as 'prakriti' = 'nature', Sanskrit means 'refined'. Sanskrit and Prakrits are different enough to not be dialects. It is perhaps a relationship more like literary Kannada and Tulu, which are wholly different languages with many similarities. (A relationship also shared by (Kannada, Tamil, Tulu, Telugu, Malayalam) and (Oriya, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi) which are all wholly different languages belonging to two families (Dravidian former, Indo-Aryan latter), with similar roots, but do not share a 'dialect' relationship between each other or with any other extant languages) Buddhism definitely had egalitarian pan-caste aspirations compared to Vedic doctrine. It is only natural that Buddha and others preached in colloquial languages, rather than literary. It is true at the same time, that later Buddhist scholars wrote many works in literary Sanskrit. Edit: Also, I did not claim that Brahmins were not numerous. They were probably the same percentage of the population as today, which is about 5-10%, which is still a 'large section', but far from the majority.
- lake99 11y ago
  > Sanskrit is a formalized version of the Prakrits that people spoke. Panini, and to some extent, his near-contemporaries formalized Sanskrit. It wasn't formalized before that. Vedic Sanskrit was never formalized. Moreover, the book you cited says, "there are many sutras in the Astadhyayi of Panini which are meaningless unless they have any reference to a living speech". > Sanskrit and Prakrits are different enough to not be dialects. From the book, "It has been said in Bharata's Natyashastra that Prakrit and Sanskrit are different branches of one and the same language. In the earliest known forms of Prakrit, there are passages which can easily be translated into Sanskrit by the application of simple phonetic rules." I agree with what you wrote about Buddha's choice of language. But my point throughout is that there has to have been a time and a place where what was then considered Sanskrit was spoken by the masses. I'd find it hard to conceive of a situation where the educated classes created a dialect/language for themselves, and only this dialect could carry the name "Sanskrit".

by lake99 11y ago

shas3 11y ago

Prakrit is not one language. I was careful to use it as 'Prakrits'. Given the formality of Sanskrit, I seriously doubt Prakrits can be considered its dialects. In fact, the relationship probably goes the other way- Sanskrit is a formalized version of the Prakrits that people spoke. In fact, the names are descriptive and are indicative of the relationship: Prakrit has the same root as 'prakriti' = 'nature', Sanskrit means 'refined'. Sanskrit and Prakrits are different enough to not be dialects. It is perhaps a relationship more like literary Kannada and Tulu, which are wholly different languages with many similarities. (A relationship also shared by (Kannada, Tamil, Tulu, Telugu, Malayalam) and (Oriya, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi) which are all wholly different languages belonging to two families (Dravidian former, Indo-Aryan latter), with similar roots, but do not share a 'dialect' relationship between each other or with any other extant languages) Buddhism definitely had egalitarian pan-caste aspirations compared to Vedic doctrine. It is only natural that Buddha and others preached in colloquial languages, rather than literary. It is true at the same time, that later Buddhist scholars wrote many works in literary Sanskrit. Edit: Also, I did not claim that Brahmins were not numerous. They were probably the same percentage of the population as today, which is about 5-10%, which is still a 'large section', but far from the majority.

lake99 11y ago
> Sanskrit is a formalized version of the Prakrits that people spoke. Panini, and to some extent, his near-contemporaries formalized Sanskrit. It wasn't formalized before that. Vedic Sanskrit was never formalized. Moreover, the book you cited says, "there are many sutras in the Astadhyayi of Panini which are meaningless unless they have any reference to a living speech". > Sanskrit and Prakrits are different enough to not be dialects. From the book, "It has been said in Bharata's Natyashastra that Prakrit and Sanskrit are different branches of one and the same language. In the earliest known forms of Prakrit, there are passages which can easily be translated into Sanskrit by the application of simple phonetic rules." I agree with what you wrote about Buddha's choice of language. But my point throughout is that there has to have been a time and a place where what was then considered Sanskrit was spoken by the masses. I'd find it hard to conceive of a situation where the educated classes created a dialect/language for themselves, and only this dialect could carry the name "Sanskrit".