Justification for teaching Sanskrit

[kichenas at math.umn.edu]

Here are a few answers to the questions raised recently on this
issue:

(1) Further to A. Aklujkar's remarks, we seem to agree that 
the initial question was about `the Indic side' of
`Classics,' and that `classical languages' in India
include Tamil and Sanskrit, to which I would add PALi and
ArdhamAgadhii at the very least, without forgetting Tibetan,
without which we would not have been able to reconstruct some
Sanskrit works.

In connection with a comment by Dominik W., it is more efficient
for Sanskritists to join forces with experts in other languages
in order to establish a core of Indology in University curricula,
than to promote Sanskrit only, thereby alienating unnecessarily
other scholars. Why compete among Indologists?

(2) Also in answer to Dominik W., here are two examples of
Sanskrit translations of works in other languages which may be
illuminating:

  a. J. Filliozat, in his book on the Tiruppavai lists several
translations (from Tamil to Skt.) which were passed, at times,
for the original. The translations are rather inaccurate.

  b. Some people found fault with one of TyAgarAja's operas
in Telugu, on the grounds that there was no Sanskrit source
for its subject-matter. A friend of his forthwith composed
secretely a Sanskrit version which was then presented as 
the original, thereby legitimating the composer (!).
[The opera was, I think, NaukA caritram. Details can be
found in Sambamoorthy's biography of TyAgarAja.
Of course, TyAgarAja, a contemporary of Beethoven, is
a major classical composer.]

(3) One must be careful with some arguments: the quote
"There are just five languages that have had an overwhelming significance
as carriers of culture. They are classical Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic,
Greek, and Latin." is unfortunate, since French and English at
least should be included! And what would Sumerologists say!

(4) It may also be important to point out that the concept
of nationalism (see Daud Ali's comments) is quite recent
in the world. The writers of the Upanishads were more
interested in universal concerns, and did not hesitate to
seek enlightenment from `outsiders.' Even if one does
not want to equate these teachers with non-Aryan 
`proto-Indians,' one must recognize that they did not 
feel that the essence of their thought belonged to one
people or one tradition.

(5) It is I think Sylvain Levi who pointed out that a full
understanding of Sanskrit is not possible without a knowledge
of Tamil sources. The importance of Tamil studies is, I hope,
well-established today, and it would be easy to elaborate.
But it seems that the priority is to establish and defend 
Indian studies in universities first, and that a unified 
stand from scholars in various aspects of Indian civilization
is desirable. Such unity would be destroyed by perpetuating
the idea that the essence of Indian civilzation is entirely 
contained in Sanskrit sources, even if these sources are 
very important and should be integrated in any curriculum.


                                Satyanad Kichenassamy
                                School of Mathematics
                                University of Minnesota
                                kichenas at math.umn.edu