3 ms·

The majority of surviving Sanskrit literature is actually secular like Poems, Dramas, science and mathematics. Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just l

The majority of surviving Sanskrit literature is actually secular like Poems, Dramas, science and mathematics. Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan, in its heyday. Otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the liturgical traditions of Buddhism, Jainism and Nastika traditions. Why would Sudraka,Vatsayana, Brhathari write in Sanskrit if no one spoke it?

busymom0 2mo ago
I grew up in India and till grade 8 (or 9? Can't remember), it was mandatory for me to take Sanskrit lessons along with English and Hindi.
- leosanchez 2mo ago
  Our state only had Sanskrit in 10, 11 and 12 and it was not taught properly.
ashishb 2mo ago
> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan, in its heyday. Otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the liturgical traditions of Buddhism, Jainism and Nastika traditions. I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language. Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin! So, nobody used Sanskrit as the primary language, but everyone could or knew someone who could convert Sanskrit to the local dialect. It is almost like how Chinese and Colombian traders might sign a contract for coffee purchase in English. Neither might use English in most of their daily operations.
- DiscourseFan 2mo ago
  Yes this makes a lot of sense, if I recall correctly the first grammar of Telegu was written in Sanskrit, and many South India languages use a lot of Sanskrit words, but of course they are not intelligible if you don't know the grammar.
- goobatrooba 2mo ago
  Not sure why you are speculating or what your background would be to do so, when the info is easy to find. Yes it was a link language given its prominence, but also > Sanskrit was a spoken language in the educated and the elite classes, but it was also a language that must have been understood in a wider circle of society because the widely popular folk epics and stories such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana, the Panchatantra and many other texts are all in the Sanskrit language, while many Sanskrit dramas indicate that the language coexisted with the vernacular Prakrits.[115] Thus, Classical Sanskrit with its exacting grammar was the language of the Indian scholars and the educated classes, while others communicated with approximate or ungrammatical variants along with other natural Indian languages,[114] with the cities of Varanasi, Paithan, Pune and Kanchipuram being centres of Sanskrit learning and debate until the arrival of the colonial era (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit )
- IAmBroom 2mo ago
  > I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language. > Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin! You're suggesting that Sanskrit became a scholarly language, which no one was disputing. You're even using as a metaphor Latin, which started out as a vulgate tongue - which is the argument you are doubting. Edit: It also applies to your English comparison. English IS spoken by millions, just not by the people you are referring to. Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone?
  - ashishb 2mo ago
    > Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone? I gave a specific example where neither the coffee wholesaler nor the buyer probably operates day to day in English. But they would still use English for the official agreement. That does not take away from other benefits of English like being spoken by millions as a primary language and probably billions as a second language
- FlyingSnake 2mo ago
  Comparing Sanskrit to the status of Latin in 17th CE is bit disingenuous and a sign of presentism. Sanskrit enjoyed scholarship since 6th BCE and it was prevalent and commonly used for more than a millennia after that. The various inscriptions found across the subcontinent, and meant for common people are in Sanskrit which disproves this idea that it was not widely used.
srean 2mo ago
> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan Is that so ? I am not knowledgeable myself but some of my family members are (professor s in Sanskrit) and from what I have absorbed from their conversation is in direct contradiction to your claim. The language of interpersonal communication were vulgarised forms, aka the vernacular languages. Sanskrit was used were a need for formality, respect, speciality was felt. Regarding your claims about secularity, you are very correct.
- FlyingSnake 2mo ago
  With all due respect, are they historians of Sanskrit linguistics or professors of Sanskrit language? That makes a big difference. Diglossia is very common in Indian culture and it is not far fetched to imagine Indians speaking Sanskrit and Prakrits fluently and switching them based on context. You can find minor examples of it even today if you look at public announcements, which are done in Sanskrit inspired verbiage.
  - srean 2mo ago
    Prof of Sanskrit with dissertation on historical changes in Sanskrit used in the Vedas. > not far fetched to imagine Indians speaking Sanskrit and Prakrits fluently and switching them based on context. Any evidence in the form of records that this indeed happened. You are promoting a nonstandard position, so the burden of proof will be on you.
    - FlyingSnake 2mo ago
      This isn’t a black and white case where “proofs” exist. Indian history is notoriously hard to study due to lack of primary sources. > historical changes in Sanskrit used in the Vedas. This is just one small corpus of Sanskrit linguistic traditions. It hardly gives them expertise over the rest of the traditions spanning few millennia. Jains, Buddhists and various other Sramana movements were championed by lower varnas and they all used Sanskrit as a liturgical language. I have already mentioned the widespread presence of edicts, danapatra, inscriptions, secular literature created for wider public which hints that Sanskrit was widely understood and Sanskrit/Prakrit Diglossia is not too far fetched.

busymom0 2mo ago

I grew up in India and till grade 8 (or 9? Can't remember), it was mandatory for me to take Sanskrit lessons along with English and Hindi.

leosanchez 2mo ago
Our state only had Sanskrit in 10, 11 and 12 and it was not taught properly.

ashishb 2mo ago

> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan, in its heyday. Otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the liturgical traditions of Buddhism, Jainism and Nastika traditions. I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language. Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin! So, nobody used Sanskrit as the primary language, but everyone could or knew someone who could convert Sanskrit to the local dialect. It is almost like how Chinese and Colombian traders might sign a contract for coffee purchase in English. Neither might use English in most of their daily operations.

DiscourseFan 2mo ago
Yes this makes a lot of sense, if I recall correctly the first grammar of Telegu was written in Sanskrit, and many South India languages use a lot of Sanskrit words, but of course they are not intelligible if you don't know the grammar.
goobatrooba 2mo ago
Not sure why you are speculating or what your background would be to do so, when the info is easy to find. Yes it was a link language given its prominence, but also > Sanskrit was a spoken language in the educated and the elite classes, but it was also a language that must have been understood in a wider circle of society because the widely popular folk epics and stories such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana, the Panchatantra and many other texts are all in the Sanskrit language, while many Sanskrit dramas indicate that the language coexisted with the vernacular Prakrits.[115] Thus, Classical Sanskrit with its exacting grammar was the language of the Indian scholars and the educated classes, while others communicated with approximate or ungrammatical variants along with other natural Indian languages,[114] with the cities of Varanasi, Paithan, Pune and Kanchipuram being centres of Sanskrit learning and debate until the arrival of the colonial era (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit )
IAmBroom 2mo ago
> I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language. > Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin! You're suggesting that Sanskrit became a scholarly language, which no one was disputing. You're even using as a metaphor Latin, which started out as a vulgate tongue - which is the argument you are doubting. Edit: It also applies to your English comparison. English IS spoken by millions, just not by the people you are referring to. Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone?
- ashishb 2mo ago
  > Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone? I gave a specific example where neither the coffee wholesaler nor the buyer probably operates day to day in English. But they would still use English for the official agreement. That does not take away from other benefits of English like being spoken by millions as a primary language and probably billions as a second language
FlyingSnake 2mo ago
Comparing Sanskrit to the status of Latin in 17th CE is bit disingenuous and a sign of presentism. Sanskrit enjoyed scholarship since 6th BCE and it was prevalent and commonly used for more than a millennia after that. The various inscriptions found across the subcontinent, and meant for common people are in Sanskrit which disproves this idea that it was not widely used.

srean 2mo ago

> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan Is that so ? I am not knowledgeable myself but some of my family members are (professor s in Sanskrit) and from what I have absorbed from their conversation is in direct contradiction to your claim. The language of interpersonal communication were vulgarised forms, aka the vernacular languages. Sanskrit was used were a need for formality, respect, speciality was felt. Regarding your claims about secularity, you are very correct.

FlyingSnake 2mo ago
With all due respect, are they historians of Sanskrit linguistics or professors of Sanskrit language? That makes a big difference. Diglossia is very common in Indian culture and it is not far fetched to imagine Indians speaking Sanskrit and Prakrits fluently and switching them based on context. You can find minor examples of it even today if you look at public announcements, which are done in Sanskrit inspired verbiage.
- srean 2mo ago
  Prof of Sanskrit with dissertation on historical changes in Sanskrit used in the Vedas. > not far fetched to imagine Indians speaking Sanskrit and Prakrits fluently and switching them based on context. Any evidence in the form of records that this indeed happened. You are promoting a nonstandard position, so the burden of proof will be on you.
  - FlyingSnake 2mo ago
    This isn’t a black and white case where “proofs” exist. Indian history is notoriously hard to study due to lack of primary sources. > historical changes in Sanskrit used in the Vedas. This is just one small corpus of Sanskrit linguistic traditions. It hardly gives them expertise over the rest of the traditions spanning few millennia. Jains, Buddhists and various other Sramana movements were championed by lower varnas and they all used Sanskrit as a liturgical language. I have already mentioned the widespread presence of edicts, danapatra, inscriptions, secular literature created for wider public which hints that Sanskrit was widely understood and Sanskrit/Prakrit Diglossia is not too far fetched.