Pali and Sanskrit
- PadmaPhala
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:22 am
Pali and Sanskrit
can Pali be considered as simply a phonetically simplified sanskrit.
Re: Pali and Sanskrit
Hello Vincenzi,
There is a previous thread on this:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And here is an entry from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... i-language" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
There is a previous thread on this:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And here is an entry from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... i-language" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
- PadmaPhala
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:22 am
Re: Pali and Sanskrit
thanks, what about buddhist hybrid sanskrit?
it is samskrita not sanskrit... nevermind.
it is samskrita not sanskrit... nevermind.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Pali and Sanskrit
the spelling with an m you are using probably has a dot above or below it, this is often changed to a standard n.Vincenzi wrote:thanks, what about buddhist hybrid sanskrit?
it is samskrita not sanskrit... nevermind.
Sangha is sometimes spelt with the dotted m also.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill