08 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaBefore you said it was the mother of ALL languages. This is clearly not the case. You have now qualified your claim to be the first language spoken by "civilised man". Sorry but that is so open to definition/interpretation that it's not worth discussing.....
Sanskrit is the first language to ever be spoken by civilised man.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by andrew93Sanskrit is the first language to be spoken by any human anywhere is existence.
Before you said it was the mother of [b]ALL languages. This is clearly not the case. You have now qualified your claim to be the first language spoken by "civilised man". Sorry but that is so open to definition/interpretation that it's not worth discussing.....[/b]
Sanskrit is an eternal language.
Sanskrit is a perfect spiritual language.
It is therefore the mother of all language.
Nothing more can be said about this.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by Dasa"In Vedic times" ...
Dialects are dialects and language is language.
Sanskrit is the first language to ever be spoken by civilised man.
Tribes isolated from civilization develop their own dialects.
It is a perfect language requiring great leaning to master.
In Vedic times it was mastered by the Brahman,s
Whats that mean?
Surely we should be concentrating our efforts on the here and now. While we may learn from the past, I belive that the Brahmans had their own problems because of proclaiming themsleves to be superior to the others.
This may have been acceptable in "Vedic Times", but today I believe we should all consider ourselves equal.
That's the only way forward for the true bhoddisatva-no one gets left behind
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaUnless you have direct experience of this (ie. you travelled back in time and personally saw that Sanskirt was indeed the first language), then you cant have any authority on this subject.
Sanskrit is the first language to be spoken by any human anywhere is existence.
Sanskrit is an eternal language.
Sanskrit is a perfect spiritual language.
It is therefore the mother of all language.
Nothing more can be said about this.
If you want a language that cant be falsified then I suggest telepathy.
Anyone who is adept at telepathy can tell whether someone is lying or being honest, even before they open their mouths 😉
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by andrew93I think the root of languages and what constitutes a "civlized" language is well worth discussing.
Before you said it was the mother of [b]ALL languages. This is clearly not the case. You have now qualified your claim to be the first language spoken by "civilised man". Sorry but that is so open to definition/interpretation that it's not worth discussing.....[/b]
For example, were the Australian aboriginies uncivilized because their language was way different than Sanskrit?
Was their "Dreamtime" not a more advanced way of communicating?
I think it was in many ways.
Yes, Indian and Chinese philosophy and religon have been the root of some languages and ideas, but the to call it the origonal language (or idea) is absurd. Especially if you belive in "eternity"
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaSo Sanskrit was the language spoken by Aborigines in Australia 30,000 years ago?
Sanskrit is the first language to be spoken by any human anywhere is existence.
Sanskrit is an eternal language.
Sanskrit is a perfect spiritual language.
It is therefore the mother of all language.
Nothing more can be said about this.
Or perhaps the Ainu in Japan, a caucasian race now living in one corner of Japan but living there long before the Japanese came in?
Or the Chinese, or the Minoans who had Cuneiform as their written language? Or perhaps the ancient Mayans in South America. You think their language is in any way related to Sanskrit?
You make unwarranted assertions then just bluster through saying anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.
You change quotes Vishavhetu, and you call US dishonest?
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelThere are 4 classes of people in human society and the Brahman class is the learned class..........never the superior class.
"In Vedic times" ...
Whats that mean?
Surely we should be concentrating our efforts on the here and now. While we may learn from the past, I belive that the Brahmans had their own problems because of proclaiming themsleves to be superior to the others.
This may have been acceptable in "Vedic Times", but today I believe we should all consider ou ...[text shortened]... selves equal.
That's the only way forward for the true bhoddisatva-no one gets left behind
A learned Brahmana sees every one as equal but recognises the different classes of people that exist naturally in society.
Karoly where are you getting your info from?.......the verse from Bhagavad Gita explains this.
TEXT 18 Cht 8
vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah
SYNONYMS
vidya--education; vinaya--gentleness; sampanne--fully equipped; brahmane--in the brahmana; gavi--in the cow; hastini--in the elephant; suni--in the dog; ca--and; eva--certainly; sva-pake--in the dog-eater (the outcaste); ca--respectively; panditah--those who are so wise; sama-darsinah--do see with equal vision.
TRANSLATION
The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].
PURPORT
A Krsna conscious person does not make any distinction between species or castes. The brahmana and the outcaste may be different from the social point of view, or a dog, a cow, or an elephant may be different from the point of view of species, but these differences of body are meaningless from the viewpoint of a learned transcendentalist. This is due to their relationship to the Supreme, for the Supreme Lord, by His plenary portion as Paramatma, is present in everyone's heart. Such an understanding of the Supreme is real knowledge. As far as the bodies are concerned in different castes or different species of life, the Lord is equally kind to everyone because He treats every living being as a friend yet maintains Himself as Paramatma regardless of the circumstances of the living entities. The Lord as Paramatma is present both in the outcaste and in the brahmana, although the body of a brahmana and that of an outcaste are not the same. The bodies are material productions of different modes of material nature, but the soul and the Supersoul within the body are of the same spiritual quality. The similarity in the quality of the soul and the Supersoul, however, does not make them equal in quantity, for the individual soul is present only in that particular body whereas the Paramatma is present in each and every body. A Krsna conscious person has full knowledge of this, and therefore he is truly learned and has equal vision. The similar characteristics of the soul and Supersoul are that they are both conscious, eternal and blissful. But the difference is that the individual soul is conscious within the limited jurisdiction of the body, whereas the Supersoul is conscious of all bodies. The Supersoul is present in all bodies without distinction.
10 Sep 11
Originally posted by Dasaone thing more can be said about it: it's all lies.
Sanskrit is the first language to be spoken by any human anywhere is existence.
Sanskrit is an eternal language.
Sanskrit is a perfect spiritual language.
It is therefore the mother of all language.
Nothing more can be said about this.
10 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaI'll take it to spirituality, if you are still interested
There are 4 classes of people in human society and the Brahman class is the learned class..........never the superior class.
A learned Brahmana sees every one as equal but recognises the different classes of people that exist naturally in society.
Karoly where are you getting your info from?.......the verse from Bhagavad Gita explains this.
TEXT 18 C ...[text shortened]... persoul is conscious of all bodies. The Supersoul is present in all bodies without distinction.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by andrew93Yes he back peddled from his claim rather clumsily. And yet, he just posted this on Spirituality "I have said all language has its roots in Sanskrit". Can't really be a 'slip up' again. He must be posting something that isn't true deliberately.
Before you said it was the mother of [b]ALL languages. This is clearly not the case. You have now qualified your claim to be the first language spoken by "civilised man". Sorry but that is so open to definition/interpretation that it's not worth discussing.....[/b]
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaSo it's just co-incidence that Brahman class has most of the money? They are equal, but maybe just a bit more equal than the other three?
There are 4 classes of people in human society and the Brahman class is the learned class..........never the superior class.
A learned Brahmana sees every one as equal but recognises the different classes of people that exist naturally in society.
Karoly where are you getting your info from?.......the verse from Bhagavad Gita explains this.
TEXT 18 C ...[text shortened]... persoul is conscious of all bodies. The Supersoul is present in all bodies without distinction.
These so-called classes of people is just so much mind rot. To what class would you put the indiginous Ainu of Japan? Or Inuit in Canada and Alaska?
Or the Mayan indians in Cancun? How bout the Jews in Israel?
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Brahmana class have no money for they provide their teaching for free.....however they do take charity.
So it's just co-incidence that Brahman class has most of the money? They are equal, but maybe just a bit more equal than the other three?
These so-called classes of people is just so much mind rot. To what class would you put the indiginous Ainu of Japan? Or Inuit in Canada and Alaska?
Or the Mayan indians in Cancun? How bout the Jews in Israel?
The only classes that take money are the vaishyas and the ksatyias.
The sudras do not get money either.
If you get your information second hand you will always have the wrong conclusion.
You should not post up comments that are incorrect......it misleads people.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by sonhouseWhen Sanskrit was well known and spoken by many - the continents where joined together and all people touched boundaries at some point.
So Sanskrit was the language spoken by Aborigines in Australia 30,000 years ago?
Or perhaps the Ainu in Japan, a caucasian race now living in one corner of Japan but living there long before the Japanese came in?
Or the Chinese, or the Minoans who had Cuneiform as their written language? Or perhaps the ancient Mayans in South America. You think their ...[text shortened]... ho disagrees with you is dishonest.
You change quotes Vishavhetu, and you call US dishonest?
Now the continents have drifted apart......and initially all language had its roots in Sanskrit.
Long ago there was one King for the entire world and ......
I could give great detail but it would fall on deaf ears.
In the end you are just digging around to create conflict because you are dishonest.
You have been attempting to discredit the Veda because you are an atheist nothing more nothing less.......and because you are an atheist you attack everything
Remember your are the one presenting life comes from muddy puddles.....not me.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaAnd you are the one just as deluded as any christian or muslim.
When Sanskrit was well known and spoken by many - the continents where joined together and all people touched boundaries at some point.
Now the continents have drifted apart......and initially all language had its roots in Sanskrit.
Long ago there was one King for the entire world and ......
I could give great detail but it would fall on deaf ears.
...[text shortened]... ack everything
Remember your are the one presenting life comes from muddy puddles.....not me.
You have the gall to tell us the whole universe is 4 billion miles across then change that to 16,000 light years.
Modern science has moved so far beyond your ridiculous vedas it is not funny. Maybe that claptrap you try to peddle convinced ancient uneducated people but it doesn't fly today when we know for a fact how large the solar system is, that we know for a fact the earth revolves around the sun and we have probes leaving the solar system as we speak. You think we would have been so fooled as to not know how big the solar system is when we have to make spacecraft that fends for themselves and arrive where we say we want them exactly at the time we say we want them? If we want them to orbit Mars then by golly it orbits Mars. If we tell it to land on mars and run around on solar powered wheels that is exactly what they do.
You denigrate all the discoveries of the last 300 years, the math, the genetics, the rocket science, the carbon dating of fossils and yes, live DID come out of a puddle but a long long time ago, with the basic chemicals of life coming from comets or asteroids which spiked the soup of the early earth.
That means those pre biotic chemicals could have seeded life anywhere in the universe there was liquid water, for instance, mars a billion years ago. We may even be martians where an asteroid strikes mars and throws off stuff developed on mars and ends up landing on earth.
There may be life of many colors in the universe just based on the travel of rocks through the galaxy, our galaxy and others.