Talk:Sanskrit literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


can anyone email me at : i am seeking the translation of the name singh into sanskrit. thank you

Singh transliterated usually as सिंग in Devnagari is dervied from sanskrit word simha सिंह meaning lion
Ramashray 04:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ramashray

Theater, as an art, is not indigenous to India...
Could someone proof that, because - i don't think so. --Simon Seelenkönig 00:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theatre as an art is almost certainly indigenous to India. There was possibly an influence from Hellenistic Greece during the expansion under Alexander the Great, but it was an influence on an existing form of theatre. --R. Kevin Doyle 1:43, 17, Nov 2005

Traditionally, authorship of the Mahabharata is attributed to the sage Vyasa. However, Vyasa's historical veracity cannot be verified by independent sources. Also, it is clear that the Mahabharata was not written by any single person at any single time. Indeed, the first stanza of the Mahabharata mentions that the name of the book is Jaya ("victory"), even though the book is now called Mahabharata. Scholarly estimates are that the epic had about 10,000 stanzas when it was first composed (by Vyasa?). It was orally transmitted for several centuries, making it easy for anyone to add a few lines here, remove/modify a few lines there.

I contest the claims that "a few lines were added here and removed there", as there is no proper citation as to any proof or analysis in the first place.

You will not find someone contesting that Shakespeare didn't write his entire works WITHOUT some form of citation.

As well, to use phrases such as "add a few lines here, remove/modify a few lines there" sounds colloquial and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --Asherek 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) I have editted that line out, I believe it is scandalous without any proper citation to back up the claims of people "doctoring" the Mahabharata as it was passed down. Asherek 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation for an edit Nov 15[edit]

My source for adding "nagarvadhu" to Mricchakatika was [1]. Is the musical adaptation worth a mention too? Mereda 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I could not find mention of Harivamsha. It should be included. Joy1963 07:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


The Bharata text was subsequently expanded, quadrupling in size over the time of four centuries or so reaching its zenith of philosophical sophistication in the seminal work of the Hindu religion, the Bhagavad Gita, which appears in the tenth Parva (book) of the Mahabharata. Edited this part. This sentence makes you feel as if Mahabharata is a philosophical work which is not true. Gita, YakshPrashna, Bhisma and Yudhishithira's comments about ethics are some of the verses that can be termed Philosophy but that is not major part considering the total number of verses. --Kaveri 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other texts[edit]

You don't say if treaties such as Artashastra, the Dharmashastras (and particularly the Manava Dharmashastra), the Kamasutra and the Karmashastra, are written in Sanskrit, and you don't say for how long inscriptions and juridical texts (statutes, bills, contracts) have been written in Sanskrit: I suppose until the Muslim conquest.
Lele giannoni (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing system[edit]

It would be informative if the various mentions of written Sanskrit would state what writing systems were used in those instances. At a general level, there is some relevant info at Sanskrit#Writing system about the various systems that have been used. -- HLachman (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vedic and Sanskrit literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


I came to this article as I was trying to see which articles to link to the main Sanskrit article. To my disappointment, this article has been tagged for a while, with "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)". Almost all of the main text was unsourced, some absurd OR such as "Indian literary production saw a late bloom in the 11th century before declining after 1100 CE, hastened by the Islamic conquest of India", etc, all worth the WP:TNT treatment. I have also taken out Ohashi et al for now, as the summary looks misrepresented. I have left the last section in, for now, as it has sources but these too need verification checks and a review for notability / WP:DUE / NPOV etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Link to the pre-cleanup version in case anyone wants to see the previous structure or recover something that is sourceable. Abecedare (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

In the article name, is Vedic

  • an adjective, ie, "associated with the Vedas", or
  • a noun, referring to the language Vedic Sanskrit (aka Vedic)

If the former, the inclusion seem unnecessary. If the latter, it needs to be spelled out. Wondering if we would not be better off simply renaming the article Sanskrit literature. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The simpler Sanskrit literature title would be much better for this article. The "Vedic and" seems repetitive, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
If any editor/talk page watcher has the time and interest to update this article, please do. Five potential sources, along with the first 12 cited in the article: [i] Anne Kessler-Persaud (2010), Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol II, pp. 3-18; [ii] Sures Chandra Banerji (1989), A Companion to Sanskrit Literature, Motilal Banarsidass; [iii] Jan Gonda's series on Sanskrit literature such as a. A History of Indian Literature: Classical Sanskrit literature, b. Vedic literature: Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas, c. Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit, etc; [iv] Moriz Winternitz (1985), Classical Sanskrit Literature, Motilal Banarsidass; [v] David Pingree's 5 volume series on Census of the exact sciences in Sanskrit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)