Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T06:20:29.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sanskrit and Sanskritization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

J. F. Staal
Get access

Extract

Language, culture, and society can be studied from various points of view. Classical Indology and Indian anthropology have different points of departure, but deal sometimes with the same material; the difference in background has generally prevented close collaboration. Classical Indologists tend to look upon Indian anthropologists as mainly interested in almost inaccessible hill tribes, in village superstition, and sometimes in contemporary affairs; moreover a synchronistic bias in methodology has often limited the potential richness of their studies. Anthropologists who study India, on the other hand, are often inclined to view classical Indologists as busy with case endings and etymological derivations, or as discussing obscure and long-forgotten doctrines. Yet neither field has been able to dispense with concepts traditionally handled by the other; for instance, anthropologists talk about language, and classical Indologists about culture. A recent example is the concept of Sanskritization, introduced by anthropologists with obvious reference to Sanskrit, the language to which the main attention of classical Indologists has always been directed. As a student of Sanskrit and classical Indology, I offer some reflections on Sanskritization with the hope that I am not altogether blind to the problems occupying anthropologists.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , May 1963 , pp. 261 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This paper was written for the Conference on South Asian Religion sponsored by the Committee on South Asia of the Association for Asian Studies, and the Center for South Asia Studies, Institute of International Relations, University of California, Berkeley. I am grateful both to these and to the Social Science Fund for enabling me to participate in this conference. I am also grateful to Professors Edward Harper (Washington), Dorodiy M. Spencer (Pennsylvania), Dr. H. M. J. Oldewelt (Amsterdam), Dr. Milton Singer (Chicago), and to my wife, Saraswathy, for valuable comments and suggestions.

2 In: Village India. Studies in the Linie Community, ed. Marriott, McKim (Chicago, 1955), pp. 1–35.Google Scholar

3 By Srinivas, M. N. in The Far Eastern Quarterly, XV (1955–1956), 481–496.Google Scholar

4 In a later paper, Sanskritization is also applied to Brahmans: “The Problem of Indian Unity,” The Economic Weekly, 26 04, 1958, pp. 571–577Google Scholar; reprinted in Introduction to the Civilization of India: Developing India, ed. Weiner, M. (Chicago, 1961), p. 52.Google Scholar

5 “The Social Organization of Tradition,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, XV (1955–1956), 13–21Google Scholar. In 1956 he modified this distinction in the light of complexities revealed by research in India, China, and Islam: Redfield, R., Peasant Society and CultureGoogle Scholar, Ch. III, “The Social Organization of Tradition.”

6 “The Cultural Pattern of Indian Civilization,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, XV, (1955–1956), 23–36.Google Scholar

7 See above, note 2.

8 Ed. M. Singer (Philadelphia, 1959).

9 “The Changing Status of a Depressed Caste,” Village India, pp. 53–77Google Scholar; cf. “Changing Traditions of a Low Caste,” Traditional India, pp. 207–215.Google Scholar

10 The Far Eastern Quarterly, XV (1955–1956), 497–505.Google Scholar

11 Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XV (1959), 227–234.Google Scholar

12 Contributions to Indian Sociology, III (1959), 40–45.Google Scholar

13 Caste and the Economic Frontier (Manchester, 1959)Google Scholar; Tribe, Caste, and Nation (Manchester, 1960).Google Scholar

14 “Caste in Modern India,” The Journal of Asian Studies, XVI (1956–1957) 531.Google Scholar

15 Bailey (1960), p. 188, n. 1.

16 Bailey also says, with reference to Sanskritization: “No-one seems to like this term.”

17 Village India, p. 59Google Scholar. According to Cohn, Rāmānanda became a member of the “South Indian Rāmānuja sect which worshipped Rām, hero of the Rāmāyana.” Rāmānuja is the founder of the Viśiṣṭādvaita school of Vedānta, which has no special connection with Rāma or the Rāmāyaṇa apart from being a vaiṣṇava movement.

18 Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, p. 225.Google Scholar

19 “A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, XV (1955–1956), 486.Google Scholar

20 Hoenigswald, H. M., Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction (Chicago, 1960), p. 3Google Scholar, n. 5.

21 Dumont, L., Une sous-caste de l'Inde du sud: Organisation sociale et religion des Pramalai Kallar (La Haye, 1957). p. 315.Google Scholar

22 “Définition structurale d'un dieu populaire tamoul: Aiyanār, le Maître,” Journal Asiatique, CCXLI (1953), 261–262Google Scholar; Contributions to Indian Sociology, III (1959), 80.Google Scholar

23 Village India, p. 209.Google Scholar

24 Coorgs, p. 208.Google Scholar

25 “Shamanism in South India,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XIII (1957), 267–287.Google Scholar

26 “Shamanism …,” p. 270.Google Scholar

27 Une sous-caste …, p. 351.Google Scholar

28 Traditional India, pp. 241–243.Google Scholar

29 For this and the following see: Renou, L., Études sur le vocabulaire du Ṛgveda, I (Pondichéry, 1958), 29–31Google Scholar; cf. Grassmann, H., Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda (Wiesbaden, 1955), pp. 1282–1283Google Scholar. Other similar examples are likely to be found in the Atharvaveda.

30 Apte, V. S., Sanskrit-English Dictionary, II (Poona, 1958), 1177.Google Scholar

31 The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (Madras, 1947), p. 677Google Scholar; cf. p. 174.

32 Le Yoga. Immortalité et Literié (Paris, 1954).Google Scholar

33 “Les origines d'une technique mystique indienne,” Revue Philosophique CXXXVI (1946), 208–220.Google Scholar

34 Traditional India, p. 256.Google Scholar

35 See the handbooks (e.g., Hillebrandt, A., Rituallitteratur [Strassburg, 1897], p. 90Google Scholar; Filliozat, L. Renou-J., L'Inde classique I [Paris, 1947], 367)Google Scholar; also von Fürer-Haimendorf, C., “The After-life in Indian Tribal Belief,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, LXXXIII (1953), 45.Google Scholar

36 “Schamanismas im alten Indien,” Acta Orientalin, XVIII (1940), 191–194.Google Scholar

37 Philosophies of India (London, 1951), p. 649Google Scholars.v. “Dravidian factor.”

38 This resulted in what Edgerton has called Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.

39 Kane, P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra, III (Poona, 1946), 825–973.Google Scholar

40 Renou, L., Religions of Ancient India (London, 1953), pp. 47–48.Google Scholar

41 Gonda, J., “Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung und Wesen des indischen Dramas,” Acta Orientalia, XIX (1943), 329–453.Google Scholar

42 See: Staal, J. F., “Notes on Some Brahmin Communities of South India,” Art and Letters. Journal of the Royal India, Pakistan and Ceylon Society XXXII (1958), 1–7Google Scholar; “Über die Idee der Toleranz im Hinduismus,” Kairos, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, I (1959), 215–218.Google Scholar

43 Cf. Staal, J. F., Nambudiri Veda Recitation, 's-Gravenhage, 1961.Google Scholar

44 See previous note.

45 For the following see: Wackernagel, J., Altindische Grammatik. I: Introduction générale par L. Renou (Göttingen, 1957)Google Scholar; Renou, L., Histoire de la langue sanscrite (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar; Burrow, T., The Sanscrit LanguageGoogle Scholar (London, n.d.).

46 Ṛksamhitā 8.46.32, referred to in Basham, A. L., The Wonder That Was India (New York, 1954), p. 32.Google Scholar

47 Cf. Staal, , Nambudiri Veda Recitation, pp. 70, 78–83.Google Scholar

48 “transformé en sanskrit sur la base des corrélations phonétiques connues”: Wackernagel-Renou, p. 30.Google Scholar

49 Cf. Renou, L., La Durghaṭattṛtti de Śaranadeva I, 1 (Paris, 1940), 8Google Scholar; Renou, L., Terminologie grammaticale du sanskrit (Paris, 1957)Google Scholar, s.v. bhāṣā; Agrawala, V. S., India as Known to Pānini (Lucknow, 1953). pp. 348–350Google Scholar, passim.

50 Cf. Staal, J. F., “The Theory of Definition in Indian Logic,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXI (1961), 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 For the following see: Bloch, J., La formation de la langue marathe (Paris, 1915)Google Scholar; Bloch, J., L'Indo-Aryan du Véda aux temps modernes (Paris, 1934)Google Scholar; Chatterji, S. K., The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language I (Calcutta, 1926)Google Scholar, especially 189–223; Chatterji, S. K., Indo-Aryan and Hindi (Calcutta, 1960)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr. E. Bender for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this section.

52 For the following see: Pillai, S. A., The Sanskritic Element in the Vocabularies of the Dravidian Languages (Madras, 1919)Google Scholar; and cf. Levi, S., Przyluski, J., and Bloch, J., Pre-Aryan and Pre-Dravidian in India (Calcutta, 1929).Google Scholar

53 See however, P. Thieme in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, XCIII (1939), 105ff.Google Scholar

54 See: Chatterji, , Origin and Development of Bengali, pp. 170–178Google Scholar and Filliozat, L. Renou-J., L'Inde classique I (Paris, 1947), 119.Google Scholar

55 Srinivas, , Coorgs, p. 214.Google Scholar

56 See for instance: Gonda, J., Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism (Utrecht, 1954).Google Scholar

57 See e.g. Diehl, C. G., Instrument and Purpose. Studies on Rites and Rituals in South India (Lund, 1956), p. 97.Google Scholar

58 Cf. Hockett, C. F., “Chinese versus English: an Exploration of the Whorfian Theses,” Language in Culture ed. Hoijer, H. (Chicago, 1954), p. 110Google Scholar: “Of all the sister fields, named or nameless, which lie close compacted within ethnography, linguistics has without doubt attained, to date, the clearest methods and the most reliable results … if linguistics has progressed further, the chief reason is the relative simplicity of its subject-matter…. Language is complex enough, but its complexity is as nothing in comparison with that of the whole fabric of life of a community … this state of affairs suggests that linguistics may have methodological lessons for other phases of ethnography.”

59 Srinivas, , “Sanskritization and Westernization,” p. 495Google Scholar; also quoted in Bailey, Tribe, Caste and Nation, p. 188Google Scholar, n. i.