Dmytro wrote:...
Well, I think I can still find some time, to discuss something, somewhat gripping.
No Sir.
You can't prove anything!
How "scientific" is that?
Epigraphic evidence do not
"points out the time when (Sanskrit) came into use".
No more than "Lucy" was the first human - until "science" discovered (very lately,) an older human in North Africa.
Also, when one knows how important was the
oral transmission in Sanskrit, (and the other languages as well), how reliable is all this?
It is also as absurd, as to say that a philosophy started in 1000 CE, because the first book about it, was written at that exact time.
Ludicrous nonsense, as usual.
Did I ever said that Sanskrit was the "mother language" of the Indo-European languages?
By the way, I don't even call them "Indo-European" anymore. I tend to call them "Indo_upper-mesopotamian_Indo", (although this is as approximative, as the former). I am not a linguist; and I don't pretend to ever be.
However, mtADN might help you understand the "semitic"?!? influence - (maybe in the reflexive N1 Mesopotamian > N Indo hark back? - who knows how "semitic" is that?)
By the way, this is a map I use - not that I consider it perfect; far from it - But it might show you, how I consider these languages (often made of many dialects).
https://justpaste.it/19rrs
I just said that Sanskrit was the literary and religious orthodox language of the highest varnas. That's all I said.
And I said that the Buddha, being a Kśatrya, was using it quite profusely when studying AND criticizing the religious Texts of the time
(which were not WRITTEN!).
How the Pali fits into that? - Certainly as a "less considered" language by the elite at the time, (and before that time). Therefore, the important influence that Sanskrit had on Pali, before Buddha's time, seems quite obvious.
In other words, it is not on the linguistics that the influence was acted upon, but upon the minds. And the linguistics did follow.
To make it simple; when a Pali speaker did hear about the ("Vedic/Sanskrit/or whatever language or dialect the Brahmanical tradition did speak across the ages") concept of "Dharman," and turned it linguistically in his Pali native language as "Dhamma"; he certainly did so, by retaining the philosophical concept. He did not have to operate philosophical changes, as he did linguistically.
Understand? - (Note: I know you do!).
So linguistics is absolutely irrelevant in that matter.
The words (and their roots,) that appeared first in the Ṛg Veda, for instance, have not changed a bit over the millennia.
Dharman, for instance was pronounced that way since its inception. The gurukuls applying the vedāṅga, made sure that it remained absolutely the same over the transmissions; whatever the language or dialect was spoken at the time.
When Dharman became Dhamma in Pali, it is because it sort of went out of the Vedic tradition - so to speak. But within the Vedic tradition, it remained always the same. However, the Pali person who heard this word "dharman" the first time, in the philosophical context of his time, did not have to operate a philosophical change, as he did with the linguistical change. Maybe, later on, studying that word, might he have said "wait a minute! - this is not the original meaning! - however this is an other issue).
Today, someone at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, will pronounce "dharman", exactly the same way as it was pronounced by the first utterer of that word, millenniums ago - intonations included.
Whatever dialects, languages it went through; or scripts it was written into later on, dharman retains its pronounciation of yesteryear - within the texts, that have not changed.
The notions behind the philosophy at time (t), remained the same across the ages; because the notions did not change with a change in the texts - although the linguistics around did change. What Dharman meant in the early Ṛg, remained the same across the age. And the notion of Dharman, which changed in the later Ṛg, did not change either across the age. We can be sure that the early Ṛg Vedists spoke of dharman as a kind of will or law; And we can be sure that the late Ṛg Vedists spoke of it as an established creation from conjecture - that is the beauty of it.
The vedāṅga was there to make it so.
Did the Pali become the language of the elite after Buddha's time? - I suppose, definitely yes.
Did Sanskrit regained its position as a language of choice, when the Brahmins made a come back - I suppose, definitely yes.
Did the Buddha preached in Pali? - Did he discuss with the Brahmins in Sanskrit?
WHO KNOWS! WHO KNOWS?
One thing for sure though, is that the Sanskrit texts were the basis of the Indian philosophy of the time.
As much for the orthodox Brahminical mind, than for the revolutionary Upaṇishadic mind, or the Buddhist mind, or the Jain mind, or the Saṃkhya mind, or whatever philosophy was taking place at the time.
Once more the issue is not in the linguistics, but in the philosophy. And maybe also, in the little "war of influence" that was going on between Brahmins & Kśatryas at the time, (maybe?).
-----
Moreover, and although I
had a great esteem for Wynne (who grants them all, anyway?), I do not need him to understand the strong relationship (discussed above) between the Vedic philosophy at large, and Buddhism. I just have to read
this extract from the Chandogya (already referenced in another previous post), to see the relationship between the notions in the Suttas, and in the late Vedic prose. And that is just one instance among many others. Many.
Now, again, if one wants to understand the Suttas, one has to go back to these Vedic notions. Period!
I see what's your problem; but the use of the Vedic (or Sanskrit root - who cares!,) is paramount in understanding a notion, that has been expressed later on (and sometimes somewhat differently,) in the Pali.
It is not the other way around.
The Buddha did not influence the early Upaniṣadic philosophers - Nor did He influence the Early Vedic Ṛṣis of the Saṁhitās.
It is not the linguistical root that imports; but the philosophical root, of the notion. And the philosophical root is the Veda.
Your craftiness, (by all kind of means,) to occult such evidence, is obvious to me - for a lot of reasons I just know. And I just hope that some wise people should wonder about that.
Now, it's your kamma; it's my kamma; and it's their kamma. That's how I see it.
Mudita.
PS. By the way, you should study the root meaning of Nirvāṇa (Nibbana) while you're at it. It might be quite informative; if you can "see".
However, as I said before, your underlying oneirism, of making a transfiguration of the world of becoming, has nothing Buddhist in it, ... at all.
three thumbs up,
............ Sorry
.
- O yes! double
though? -
I see!
