Show one Sanskrit manuscript older than 1446. Not a single Stone inscription, Copper plate, Terracotta inscription of classical sanskrit has ever been found nor any Hindu site. Show a single evidence? The evidence of sanskrit found are of Buddhist Sanskrit at Buddhist schools like Nalanda here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda#/media/File:Nalanda_cl...
Not a single archeological evidence of Hindu (Brahman) dharm exist, if you have any evidence older that 1446 you have to furnish the proof.
Brahmins were writing Allahupanishad at the time of mughals praising Allah to be the supreme god and greater than Vishnu.
During the British Rule They wrote Bhavishya Puran and praising queen victoria to be the great ruler and even mentioned Macaulay. All those sanskrit books of Hindus religion were written much later infact they couldnt be written before teh invention of Devanagari script. And devanagari script itself was invented between 11th and 13th century.
> All those sanskrit books of Hindus religion were written much later infact they couldnt be written before teh invention of Devanagari script.
Sanskrit is script agnostic language so Sanskrit manuscript are found in every Indian script. If you do not know this then you are not qualified to talk about Sanskrit.
Edit: Hinduism is neither doctrine based nor centralised so every single purana and upnishad isn't authentic. Hindus and are free to discard what doesn't align with Dharma as described in Vedas.
What make you think Allopnishad wasn't written by Muslims to convince Hindus?
First of all you clearly have no clue that the Modern Classical Sanskrit is a newer language an earlier language existed known as BHS(Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) this language was written in a script older than Devanagri script. There are ample Buddhists manuscripts of this language written in various scripts like Kharoshti. Why do we not find a single Brahman Dharm manuscript?
Simply because much of (Brahman Dharm) Hinduism was invented after the invention of Devanagri script in 11 century.
Also The classical sanskrit in which all Brahman Text (Hindu text) is written cannot be written in any Indian script before 11th century. Simply because the very basic sounds of sanskrit "Chha" (छ), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ), compound sounds, halants and visargas are not present in any script before that.
In the end what is the basis of your claim? All your claims are sand castles without archaeological evidence which is non existent for Brahman Dharm (Hinduism).
Vedas dont prescribe anything in terms of rejecting books, 33% of Rig Veda is only talk fire burning rituals and Indra, i suggest you first read it before speaking about it.
> Simply because the very basic sounds of sanskrit "Chha" (छ), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ), compound sounds, halants and visargas are not present in any script before ....
Wrong Brahmi was capable of representing Sanskrit sounds.
> Simply because much of (Brahman Dharm) Hinduism was invented after the invention of Devanagri script in 11 century.
With this statement you have denied the foundational claim of Buddhism. You have also disowned numerous philosopher of Buddhism. If Sanatan Dharma didn't exist what exactly was being reformed by Buddha?
> Also The classical sanskrit in which all Brahman Text (Hindu text) is written cannot be written in any Indian script before 11th century.
Classical Sanskrit?? Are you claiming Vedas were written in classical Sanskrit? Then Vedic Sanskrit was used for exactly what? Vedic books are transmitted in Vedic Sanskrit which had more sounds than classical Sanskrit. On top of that Vedas are shruti (heard) and they are transmitted orally even to this day.I hope you know about 6 pre- requisite (vedangas)required to read Vedas . First vedanga is Sikhsa which si about correct pronunciati. Chandas comes second and defines the metre of the Vedic hymns.
> Vedas dont prescribe anything in terms of rejecting books, 33% of Rig Veda is only talk fire burning rituals and Indra ...
Which part of veda teaches commandment and asks the followers to be the blind followers? What is wrong in 33% of rigved praising universe and nature. Is regressive but Buddh vandana is progressive?
> You must also address Bhavishya Puran.
Produce the questionable reference first and then we can debate.
On that note you also address the birth based castism and misogyny of Buddhism.
Ariguttara Nikaya (II.35) "beings/ puggalas" are of four categories:
a)tamo tama parayano, of miserable birth and bound for misery
b)tamo jyoti parayano, of miserable birth but bound for happiness
c)joti tama parayano, of happy, good birth but bound for misery
I can produce more references directly from Buddhist text. I challenge to do the same from Vedas and related text.
Regarding your 11th century claim. Brahmin produced Vedas, upvedas, vedangas, upnishads, brahman granths, aranykad, arthshastras,plays and poetry of kalidas,bharthari, numerous astronomy, mathematics books, 6 schools of philosophy, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita 11th century onwards when India was attacks from the invaders. I nstead of defending kingdoms, these large projects were started by the ruling class.
* Again you should first read your own source wikipedia, where do you see in the alphabet table these sounds:
"Ksha" (क्ष), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ) in Brahmi script character ?
[correction i was talking about Ksha (क्ष) mistakenly wrote Chha (छ)]
* Hathi Bada Ghoshundi is Pali in Brahmi script again which is a Buddhist language not Hindu, there is no actual manuscript of this photograph so it could be a hoax. None of the Museums have the inscription for all we know it was on wood. and it got destroyed no one actually ever dated it only this photograph exists.
Whatever references you are pointing dont have a single actual evidence just claims your entire Arthashastra was discovered after 1901 in paper form no manuscript again.
I can point to many inconsistencies but the fact remains none of the claims have any actual physical or archaeological evidence, and to top it all Brahman dharm is trying to find their existence in buddhist manuscript and language because Brahman dharm have no evidence of their own.
You must stop with these claims and point to some actual archeological evidence.
> "Ksha" (क्ष), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ) in Brahmi script character ?
You claiming these to be the part of Sanskrit sound system which is incorrect. Show me an authentic Sanskrit alphabet in which these sound listed. For your information these letters aren't representing unique sound so they can be expressed as combinations of 2 letter while writing.
क् + ष = क्ष
त् + र = त्र
ज् + ञ = ज्ञ
All the various Sanskrit sound combinations and its nuances cannot be written down in any script, not even devnagri. Basic sound such as अ can have 18 different variations when spoken. Which script will have the capability to represent such richness. Hence it is an oral first language.
> * Hathi Bada Ghoshundi is Pali in Brahmi script again which is a Buddhist language not Hindu, there is no actual manuscript of this photograph so it could be a hoax. None of the Museums have the inscription for all we know it was on wood. and it got destroyed no one actually ever dated it only this photograph exists.
Make your mind. It is a hoax or it is a Buddhist inscription? Refute Heliodorus_pillar too as hoax.
You also didn't refute Buddha's statements from Ariguttara Nikaya (II.35) in which he clearly seems to discriminate based on the birth. On the contrary you also did not produce evidence of birth based caste from 4 Vedas, 18 Upnishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, or Bhagwad Gita.
> The so called "Gurukul" has never been found at any archaeological site.
Chariot were considered fiction until they were not[0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakhigarhi&ved=2ahUKEwjwktvM...