Preserve Sanskrit to preserve ancient Indian knowledge systems

Mathematics and mathematical thinking have been an important aspect of Indian culture for a long time. From ancient philosophical verses like “Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishyate” (Infinity minus infinity can still be infinity) that reflect mathematical thinking, to the inherently mathematical structure of the alphabets and phonetics of Indian languages, to the discovery of zero and negative numbers, trigonometry, calculus, and more – so much mathematics has been discovered for ages in a way that is deeply intertwined in Indian culture.

– Manjul Bhargava, The Economic Times, 18 August 2014

Princeton University Professor Manjul Bhargava, is the first mathematician of Indian-origin to win the Fields Medal, the highest badge of honour in mathematics. Despite having grown up in Canada and the US he is well-versed in Hindi and Sanskrit and is very attached to his Indian roots. This makes him a suitable candidate to be branded as communal. Bhargava is not the only communal mathematician that India has produced. There was Ramanujan who saw his solutions in a dream when the Goddess Nammakkal rolled out her tongue.

However after Manjul Bhargava won the Field Medal, there were a large number of articles & debates in the Indian media asking why we don’t produce more of such mathematicians. Well the answer is one word: Secularism.

When many so-called intellectuals in the media decide to oppose the celebration of “Sanskrit Week in Schools by Central Board of Secondary Education”, rest assured that there is lot more behind the obvious. Opposing teaching of Sanskrit helps to stop the progress of Indians and India.  Some of you will ask how teaching Sanskrit will lead to learning.

In an interview to India Today, Professor Manjul Bhargava said, “Growing up, I had a chance to read some of the works of the great masters: linguists/poets such as Panini, Pingala, and Hemachandra, as well as the great mathematicians Aryabhata, Bhaskara, and of course Brahmagupta.  Their works contain incredible discoveries in mathematics, and were very inspirational to me. The classic works of Pingala, Hemachandra, and Brahmagupta have been particularly influential in my own work.” (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/fields-medal-winner-manjul-bhargava-interview-3-ancient-indian-mathematicians-his-inspiration/1/377773.html)

Ancient and medieval Indian mathematical works, all composed in Sanskrit, usually consisted of a section of sutras in which a set of rules or problems were stated with great economy in verse in order to aid memorization by a student. This was followed by a second section consisting of a prose commentary (sometimes multiple commentaries by different scholars) that gave a detailed explanation of the problem along with providing justification for the solution. In the prose section, the form (and therefore its memorization) was not considered so important in comparison to the ideas involved.

Bhāskara II‘s treatise on mathematics, written in 1150, known as Lilavati includes a number of methods of computing numbers such as multiplications, squares, and progressions, with examples using kings and elephants, objects which a common man could understand. Here is an example:

The rule for the problem illustrated here is in verse 151, while the problem itself is in verse 152:

151:  The Square of the pillar is divided by the distance between the snake and its hole; the result is subtracted from the distance between the snake and its hole.  The place of meeting of the snake and the peacock is separated from the hole by a number of hastas equal to half that difference.

152:  There is a hole at the foot of a pillar nine hastas high, and a pet peacock standing on top of it.  Seeing a snake returning to the hole at a distance from the pillar equal to three times its height, the peacock descends upon it slantwise.  Say quickly, at how many hastas from the hole does the meeting of their two paths occur? (It is assumed here that the speed of the peacock and the snake are equal.) 

 Most of us can agree that the kids will find it more interesting to read and solve the puzzle of the snake and peacock.

Now every child does not have the option of getting introduced to the works of the great mathematicians of ancient India. So opposing the teaching of Sanskrit not only deprives Indians of the knowledge of their forefathers but also helps to divide the society in haves and have-nots in terms of language, knowledge and access to the same. Sadly the opposition to study Indian knowledge and knowledge systems is quite old.

“Ramchandra spent the decade prior to the 1850s in attempting to introduce calculus to Indian students, and in the process confronted serious pedagogic problems related to ethno-mathematics. Ramchandra, schooled in the algorithmic tradition of the schools of mathematics in India was equally at home with the mathematics ploddingly inscribed in British school curricula. He wrote a treatise in English, in the tradition of the textbooks of nineteenth century mathematics. However, the Treatise contained a new method and was to be a subject of much criticism rather than discussion on its novelty. Augustus De Morgan, then Professor at University of London, was the first arrived mathematician to see a copy of Ramchandra’ work-and till he received it, Ramchandra was the butt of ridicule by his countrymen, an exotic specimen for colonial administrators. De Morgan’s own interest in the work of Ramchandra arose from the fact that he was closely associated with the formulation of curricula for mathematics teaching in Britain; which involved devising methods for instructing British school students in elementary notions of complex algebra and the new discipline of calculus. Ramchandra’s teaching could, he felt, prove useful in the latter project in Britain. The book, De Morgan felt, could be introduced in British schools, though it was written for very different purposes viz. that of instructing students in India brought up on the theory of equations as encountered in the Bija-Ganita of Bhaskaracharya, into a relatively new branch of mathematics.” (The Structure of Scientific Exchanges in the Age of Colonialism by Dhruv Raina and S. Irfan Habib.)

The problem of converting ancient to modern is not a problem faced by India alone. Even Europe faced the same issues. But they came out of it successfully because they didn’t have secularists in the form of media and intellectuals. A contrast in Europe and India is given below:

1. “The greatest of Greek mathematicians, Archimedes (287-212 B.C.) made effective use of indivisibles in geometry, but considered the idea of infinity as without logical foundation. Likewise, Aristotle argued that, since a body must have form, it must be bounded, and therefore cannot be infinite. While accepting that there were two kinds of “potential” infinities—successive addition in arithmetic (infinitely large), and successive subdivision in geometry (infinitely small)—he nevertheless polemicised against geometers who held that a line segment is infinitely composed of many fixed infinitesimals, or indivisibles. This denial of the infinite constituted a real barrier to the development of classical Greek mathematics. By contrast, the Indian mathematicians had no such scruples and made great advances, which, via the Arabs, later entered Europe.” (Does Mathematics Reflect Reality?, Part Four: Order Out of Chaos, http://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html)

2. “Historians of science agree that Newton’s Latin was often unclear. All the formulas that are referred to as ‘Newton’s equations’ were introduced later by Euler, Daniel Bernouilli and other mathematicians. C. Truesdell wrote in 1968: ‘It is true that we, today, can easily read them into Newton’s words, but we do so by hindsight.’ David Park added in 1988: ‘It took a century before Newton’s work was made fully intelligible and others could do science without being a genius.’ Formulas could trigger a scientific revolution because they were easy to understand and soon became intelligible to large numbers of people all over the world. But that simple hypothesis seems to have drowned in a flood of historical, economical, sociological, and political explanations that rarely touch the heart of science, which is knowledge. India provides a telling contrast: infinite power series and the trigonometric functions of sine, cosine, and so forth were discovered by Madhava in the late fourteenth century, almost three centuries before they were discovered in Europe by Gregory, Newton, and Leibniz. In Europe, infinite series were a powerful ingredient of the scientific revolution. Indian mathematics was equally strong in this respect and strong enough in any case to have similar consequences. But it was formulated in a complex form of Sanskrit, more obscure than Newton’s Latin, and so nothing happened. (Artificial Languages: Asian Backgrounds or Influences? in IIAS News letter | #30 | March 2000)

Based on such facts,it will be correct to say that in India there can be no Bhargava without Sanskrit.

(Sandeep Singh, writes a weekly column on “Narendra modi & CXO Leadership” on www.swastik.net.in )

 

 

 

  • Atheist Ethicist

    I don’t see secularism as a problem here. It is myopic to even assume that is the case. Do we see pythagoras and euclid as pagans/pre-christian?? Knowledge is NOT religion specific. It is universal. In fact most of the right wing does a great disservice to India’s traditional knowledge bank by coloring it in religious tones. Sanskrit is a language, a rich one. But not necessarily a ‘hindu’ one. The term hindu was at least two millennia away when Sanskrit was at its zenith. Most of India’s modern classic ‘hindu’ literature was actually written in urdu. Munshi Premchand wrote mostly in urdu. The right is actually wrong when it comes to be the ambassadors of hinduism, because what they hate the most in other religions – narrow thinking and a closed mind, is exactly what they have become. Shame on them.

    • Praveen Rai

      You should not commit the
      error of analyzing the issue using Western frameworks. Secularism is not a
      hindrance when it comes to claiming Greek traditions and their knowledge
      systems as part of Western civilization. In fact, science and philosophy of
      ancient Greece is proudly pursued in the Western academia. In India, the
      secularists despise all things dharmic; for them it is backward and communal.
      That’s why Sanskrit studies and exploration of our traditional knowledge
      systems have become esoteric stuff. And, why do you conflate dharma with this
      western-construct called religion? There is no right and left wing when it
      comes to people who follow Hindu dharma? Science and religion are at
      loggerheads only when religion demands exclusivity to knowledge and truth.
      Hindu dharma and all Indic traditions are all-inclusive, all-enveloping. The
      binary constructs don’t exist in dharma. So, the author is emphasizing the
      point that these divisions have been created by these Indian secularists who
      have blindly borrowed western frameworks to separate dharma from science/math,
      when the truth is that all categories are integrally united in dharmic system.
      What you call “narrow thinking right wing” is only awakening Indians
      to tap into the vast treasure troves of dharmic wisdom, so that India can
      reclaim greatness in science and mathematics. They are offering better lenses
      to these myopic secular intellectuals/policy makers, who have been instrumental
      in denying Indians the wisdom of their own traditions, in contrast to what West
      has done with Greek knowledge systems. Sanskrit, btw, is a dharmic
      language…it is called the “Dev bhasha.” The word Hindu is a
      corruption of Sindhu….so, doesn’t matter whether or not it existed when
      Sanskrit was created. And, Sanskrit, as Rajiv Malhotra explains it beautifully:
      “Throughout the ages, Indian rishis and grammarians have believed that
      primordial vibrations comprise all reality, that vibrations are the heartbeat
      of the cosmos. The reverberations from this cosmic ‘pulsing’, as discovered,
      constitute the alphabets of Sanskrit, which does not associate meanings with
      sounds arbitrarily.” So, there you go….this is not an ordinary language;
      it is a divine language. Math and science is latent in it and needs to be
      unraveled. So, we need more exposure to this. And the secularists have to stop equating
      the relationship between Abrahamic traditions and science with dharma and
      science. That’s where secularism of India is singularly responsible for all the
      “willful” backwardness of Indian education system.

      • kyzylkumkohlrabi

        Beautifully put.

      • Amarnath Dinamani

        you are right my friend.

      • Atheist Ethicist

        I am putting forward my views here. Addressing them to you since the other commentators here seem really…well…trashy. Being gainfully employed I don’t get the time for online debates. So please treat this as my final arguments. You can of course disagree with me on everything. Your Call.

        My comments and arguments follow the points you made which are in square brackets.

        [You should not commit the error of analyzing the issue using Western frameworks. – ]
        What are those frameworks? What makes anything a western or eastern
        framework? Aryabhatta was one of the greatest man of science India has ever had and one of the most ill-treated as well. It took Ramanujam’s travel to Europe for his genius to come out to the world.
        The problem is that people WANT to see things differently, drive a wedge
        between ways of thinking with the sole aim of proving their way is right. Today
        we all believe that democracy is the best form of governance, this certainly
        wasn’t an idea that was born in India. We had a system of benevolent dictators
        in ancient India. Duties were assumed by the royalty and the raja was supposed to follow his ‘raj dharma’ – royal duties, but people definitely didn’t have a say in it. The framers of the Indian constitution looked to the western world for inspiration – the American constitution and the Westminster system of governance in Britain to frame our own – which is now considered an inspiration for many fledgling democracies. This is how thoughts come together and achieve enlightenment. So I really don’t buy the whole western and eastern argument. What is good is good. And what is bad is bad irrespective of the nature of its origin. Also we conveniently forget that ancient India was one of the first civilization that recognized the ‘nastika’ thought. The notion that anything and everything can be questioned.

        [Secularism is not a hindrance when it comes to claiming Greek traditions and their knowledge systems as part of Western civilization. In fact, science and philosophy of ancient Greece is proudly pursued in the Western academia. Yes they in India, the secularists despise all things dharmic; for them it is backward and communal.]
        Secularism is not a hindrance when it comes to western thoughts and
        ideals – Of course its not. But like I said earlier – to an enlightened mind it
        is immaterial where knowledge is coming from. When the arabs and the western world had no problem accepting the zero, why should we? Secularism means being agnostic of any religious bias. Knowledge is knowledge wherever it comes from. People are taking the church to task all over the world but when the same thing happens in India with temples we suddenly become anti-hindu secularists. I think it is a grave injustice to the Indian ethos and ‘bharatiyata’ – a term the right has appropriated to only mean the ‘hindu’ religion. I am proud of
        aryabhatta and the number system and the quadratic equations and vedic maths (though there’s nothing vedic about it) and the eight planets and a whole list of things that made ancient India proud. But I am also enlightened by the work of Newton and Einstein. By Faraday and Darwin, by Voltaire, Henry Miller, Bertrand Russell. By the fundamental laws of gravity and relativity. By heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (which the right is comically claiming as theirs – including stem cell, nuclear weapons and principles of flight) I like Premchand as much as I like Dickens. I just don’t see the use of Sanskrit the same way you probably don’t understand the significance of Pali
        or Prakrit. You also conveniently forget that the classical western language of
        ‘Latin’ no longer exists. It just became too cumbersome to use. Could Latin’s
        downfall have been arrested? It could and so could Sanskrit’s, but to say that
        one was better than the other solely on the basis of personal opinion is
        illogical. If you sell Sanskrit as a hindu language an not as an Indian
        language you can’t fault people to see it as such. No one is seeing the
        followers of Sanskrit as backward or communal. What is abhorrent is when these are thrust upon people. Sanskrit might actually be the language that takes the country forward but that is a personal opinion that individuals are free to follow. Let’s not behave like West Pakistan behaved with East Pakistan where Bengali was being bull-dozed to make way for urdu. Because there’s only a small degree of difference.

        [That’s why Sanskrit studies and exploration of our traditional knowledge
        systems have become esoteric stuff.]

        Sanskrit has become esoteric like Latin. To a large majority it doesn’t work. It represents an ideal that isn’t considered practical. Pali and Prakrit are even more esoteric!

        [And, why do you conflate dharma with this western-construct
        called religion? ]
        I don’t conflate anything. The name ‘hindu’ itself is of foreign origin.
        But hindus themselves behave like they live within a religion. There are
        taboos and notions of hell and heaven. Of the role that women should play – the caste system – this whole culture and ‘sanskriti’ thing. Like we want the world to stand still where it was, or what it was. The open-mindedness that ancient India practiced in questioning everything – the true quest for truth is not longer the guiding light. Progressiveness has given way to obstinacy and
        orthodoxy. Its hard to believe that less than 200 years ago Sati was looked
        upon with pride! The last case being just 35 years ago. Widow-remarriage, child marriage, untouchability, the caste system, the purdah system, inter-caste marriage…the list can go on. Somewhere down the line we became too rigid in our approach to living. Like when we saw Islam coming we devised our own strict codes to adhere to. THAT is when Hinduism became a religion. Visionaries like Raja Ram Mohan Roy started the reformation which is yet to be completed. And the way I see it, its becoming even more difficult to rationalize with the un’cultural crowd’. This crowd is the ‘right wing’ I’m talking about.

        [There is no right and left wing when it comes to people who follow Hindu dharma?]
        There’s a reason why Nehru, Gandhi, Patel, Vajpayee were hindus and not
        members of the RSS – this should tell you the non-rights from the rights. Its a pity that even though Savarkar was an atheist there is nothing rational about the Sangh today. Right wings exist in all religions/cultures. They have a misguided notion of knowing it all and want the world at large to subscribe to their way of life. The khaps are right wingers and so is the ISIS – agree, to different degrees. The waste of a life who burned Graham Staines alive was a right winger as were those barbaric men who burnt the coach with women and children in Godhra and the men who killed pregnant women thereafter. Your bias is clear when you presume that ONLY for those who follow the hindu dharma there is no right wing. I am appalled that you even believe it to be an argument! Or you believe that some of the kind of people I mentioned were not hindus and since they certainly didn’t belong to other religions they were all atheists! Which is even more preposterous!!

        [Science and religion are at loggerheads only when religion demands exclusivity to knowledge and truth. Hindu dharma and all Indic traditions are all-inclusive, all-enveloping.]
        I agree with you. Religion should never demand exclusivity to knowledge.
        But the right-wingers don’t. Just yesterday there was a report of a BJP ex
        chief minister saying that science is a pygmy in front of astrology! ASTROLOGY – which is a mockery of science and astronomy.

        [The binary constructs don’t exist in dharma. So, the author is emphasizing the
        point that these divisions have been created by these Indian secularists who
        have blindly borrowed western frameworks to separate dharma from science/math, when the truth is that all categories are integrally united in dharmic system. What you call “narrow thinking right wing” is only awakening Indians to tap into the vast treasure troves of dharmic wisdom, so that India can reclaim greatness in science and mathematics. They are offering better lenses to these myopic secular intellectuals/policy makers, who have been instrumental in denying Indians the wisdom of their own traditions, in contrast to what West has done with Greek knowledge systems.]
        There is a lot of wordplay here. If we cover ancient wisdom as ‘dharmic’
        there are bound to be oppositions. Because unlike you not many know that
        ancient Indian knowledge is NOT religion based (though there is a lot of
        pseudo-knowledge masquerading as religion – matching of horoscopes for
        instance). And the people pushing this are doing it with a narrow religious
        agenda. Both you and I know the English language not because it is ‘christian’
        but because it makes sense, it’s practical. But if it were forced on us with
        religious overtones I’m sure both of us would be offended. The same thing is at
        play here with Sanskrit.

        [Sanskrit, btw, is a dharmic language…it is called the “Dev bhasha.”]
        How can you give that argument to someone who does not believe in the ‘Dev’
        hypothesis? There are no gods. There never were. Gods didn’t create men. It’s
        the other way round. My personal view. And I will hold on to it.

        [The word Hindu is a corruption of Sindhu….so, doesn’t matter whether or not it existed when Sanskrit was created.]
        Not a matter of discussion here. And I suspect you already know that I
        know it.

        [And, Sanskrit, as Rajiv Malhotra explains it beautifully: “Throughout the ages, Indian rishis and grammarians have believed that primordial vibrations comprise all reality, that vibrations are the heartbeat of the cosmos. The reverberations from this cosmic ‘pulsing’, as discovered, constitute the alphabets of Sanskrit, which does not associate meanings with sounds arbitrarily.”]
        Rajiv Malhotra has every right to have his views. As long as they are his personal views. But I question everything. If it indeed is a language of cosmic pulsing and divine in nature it should have survived the man-inflicted torture. Sanskrit to me is and ancient language that gave birth to a number of other languages. It has its merits, but I will not call it the most superior of all languages blindly. There are innumerable languages I don’t even know about.
        Lots of them I haven’t even heard. Sanskrit clearly didn’t originate in a vacuum.
        There were languages before it as well. What makes it supra-special in the
        constant journey of linguistic evolution? I will not make a summary judgement
        like Mr. Malhotra.

        [So, there you go…this is not an ordinary language; it is a divine language. Math and science is latent in it and needs to be unraveled. So, we need more exposure to this. And the secularists have to stop equating the relationship between Abrahamic traditions and science with dharma and science. That’s where secularism of India is singularly responsible for all the “willful” backwardness of Indian education system.]
        The only ‘divine’ language of the cosmos is mathematics. A language that
        is the fundamental to nature. A language that needs no linguistic ability to be
        understood – across cultures and countries. Across the universe. And you can’t blame the secularists if the cultural crowd themselves see the construct as such.

    • Amarnath Dinamani

      Are you mad?

      • Atheist Ethicist

        Since you ask. NO. I am not mad. But I do suspect you are.

        • Amarnath Dinamani

          If you are an athiest you have a right to be. If sanskrit is a deva bhasha , it is called by many people and just by you being an athiest it cannot be called otherwise.Dont argue and waste your energy but use it constructively. I advise you to read this:

          http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-29.html

          • Amarnath Dinamani

            Astrology is not a mockery of astronomy, its uses astronomy to construct the natal charts. unless you can disprove a science, dont abuse it.scientific temper first demands that you be able to disprove something before you claim its wrong.I dont think you know anything about astrology.Dont think everyone in the universe is limited by the same sense organs as you and me. There are some among us who have better abilities in maths,physics,music and other sciences. So also there are higher powers or we can postulate that higher powers can/do exist.

          • Atheist Ethicist

            All I can utter here is a hearty laugh. Haha. My horoscope said I’d be dead some 15 years ago. I’m probably writing to you from the netherworld. It’s really hot in here. I guess because hell is where I’m in anyways 🙂

          • Atheist Ethicist

            http://www.csicop.org/si/show/an_indian_test_of_indian_astrology/

            The fundamental flaw in your argument is regarding the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on those who are claiming something, not on those who are ‘dis’claiming it. You’re making a mockery of common sense itself. If a claim that a new god exist, it is solely my responsibility to prove it. I can’t ask you to disprove it! I don’t understand the reasoning in your argument at all 🙂
            On your second point…there are a lot of people amongst us who are adept in committing horrendous crimes…can I then postulate that there exists no god? Your argument is so fallacious that I can’t even begin to shred it apart. All I can suggest is you open your mind and seek the truth for yourself…rather than put faith in superstition. Good luck.

          • Amarnath Dinamani

            Arguing with you is pointless. Counter theories also need proof. can you admit that you exist, what if somebody questions your existence lets say after 100yrs? please answer this simple question, how is somebody going to prove that you existed?

          • Atheist Ethicist

            Pointless. Exactly how I feel. God exists. By saying just that you want the world to disprove it rather than proving your own fantastical claim! I sincerely hope you can see the fallacy of that argument. In fact this is one of the fundamental tenets of logic and reasoning. Please look it up. If I say there exists a spaghetti monster and ask the world to disprove my claim I’d be labelled a lunatic. And then the larger question…how many gods exist? All cultures have innumerable gods. Add to that ancient civilisations and their beliefs. Don’t you see a pattern? Early man attributed phenomena he couldn’t comprehend to some form of higher power. We can understand this. But it makes absolutely no sense today. We seem to be blindly following what we’ve been told for years. It has become so embedded in our psyche that the very thought of it not being true becomes disconcerting. All children are born atheist. It’s people and society that trains them to believe something blindly.
            On

          • Atheist Ethicist

            And since I’m writing this to you, I definitely exist. 100 years from now my descendants would believe I existed. There are things I’ve done, papers I’ve written that will hopefully survive. I have a social footprint that will prove my existence. If I manage to do something pathbreaking historians will record it. I will be a part of my family’s genealogical tree, the same way my great great grandfather is…I could just go on and on 🙂

          • Amarnath Dinamani

            What if somebody refuses to believe? what if somebody throws a contradiction that “it is not you but somebody else”,thats where reasoning stops”. Lets sat 1000yrs passed and a nuclear war destroyed all proofs of your existence, what then?does it mean you did not exist?its only true that you existed,but the proofs no longer exist.i hope you understand that this is only an analogy.In the same manner people who have experienced divine presence have given us lot of proofs in terms of yoga sastra, mantra sastra etc and have similarly recorded their experiences in several ancient texts. so try treading that path before writing up.

          • Atheist Ethicist

            If someone refuses to believe in my existence then the burden of proof is on those who say I existed. Its as simple as that. Because if one doesn’t follow this simple construct then ANYTHING is possible. And please don’t bundle yoga and mantras together. Yoga is PROVEN to improve health, Mantra doesn’t do anything. I’m sure you don’t believe in Zeus or Hades or Apollo. But if you go forward with your kind of argument then you are ethically bound to believe that they existed and were probably more powerful than your hindu gods. Why doesn’t something as basic as this doesn’t get into your head is beyond me. Have we as a culture become so full of ourselves that we don’t see reason at all?? It a collective shame for all of us. If you don’t want to read rational arguments then just go and read something that Savarkar wrote about gods. I’m hoping it might help open your eyes.
            And honestly Mr. Dinamani, I’ve already spent a disproportionate amount of time to make you see reason. But you’re clearly beyond help. At least from me. So I will cease to comment on your banal comments from now on.

          • Amarnath Dinamani

            your half knowledge with regard to several things is extremely embarrassing to me atleast.Pointless arguing and wasting my time.

          • Atheist Ethicist

            :o)

          • Atheist Ethicist
          • Atheist Ethicist

            Mr. Dinamni, you need to understand that by forcing your personal views on me you are only going against the ancient indian tradition of questioning everything. It is one of the classical definitions of a closed mind. I am not imposing my views on you. I think you are beyond it. I’d suggest you don’t waste your energies on doing the same to me. As far as the link you shared…an internet link doesn’t prove anything. I repeat it DOES NOT prove anything. If you are gullible enough to think otherwise I’d rather leave you to your devices. No point arguing on this with you. 🙂

    • Chitra Sharma

      Since you are incapable of understanding anything, it would have been good for you to not to write about your ignorance. Now you have exposed your shallow knowledge and your inability to understand higher concepts.

      • Atheist Ethicist

        I fear it is you who have exposed your inability to understand an argument. I also doubt you know the basics of Sanskrit. Please consider this my last argument with you on the subject. I could do without debating an enclycopaedic ignoramus as you. Its a wonder you made such an impression on me in just 3 sentences. But then … wonders do exist.

  • Shubhangi Raykar

    It is sad to see the political moves stopping students from learning or even developing Sanskrit. Conversions to Christianity and increasing importance given to English and to the west orientation are severing the roots of so many. It is really a worrying factor.