A student recently asked me how to think in Sanskrit. Her point was that thinking in English or in any other foreign language immensely helps one in translating a text, so that this should be desirable also in the case of Sanskrit.
Now, I am not sure that an active knowledge of Sanskrit would help all kinds of people. I am sure there are great scholars who have no active knowledge of the language they work on. There are analytic learners, who have problems with the listening comprehension of a language even when they master its grammar. For all of them, acquiring an active command of Sanskrit might take a long time and not yield enough benefits. Yet, I am inclined to think that for some kinds of learners, an active usage of the language, as can be expressed by the idea of “thinking in Sanskrit”, would be of great help even if one does not want to speak Sanskrit about daily topics and just wants to better understand Sanskrit śāstra.
But how to acquire such a skill?
- Read a lot, especially texts based on a dialectic structure (two or more speakers arguing on the basis of arguments)
- Try to phrase basic questions in Sanskrit (say, you read in the maṅgala caraṇāravindaṃ vande and ask kasya caraṇau?)
- Try writing simple summaries of what you read in Sanskrit (using the same words you just read, it does not need to be original)
- If you have the chance, take classes in spoken Sanskrit, especially if you can find a teacher who will also introduce you to some extent to śāstric Sanskrit
What do readers think? Can you “think in Sanskrit”? Does it help you? How did you learn it?
Incidentally, I discussed the pros and cons of spoken Sanskrit in a post on my first blog, here.
I believe strongly in the view you propose, Elisa. (While I am not particularly good at it myself!) “Prose composition” is a standard component of a traditional European education in Classics. The students would be given English passages for translation into Latin or Greek. I had this, when I did Latin at school. We had a particularly gifted Latin teacher (Mr Peter Radcliffe) and each week he would give us passages from TV comedies (“Get Smart”) to translate into Latin and vice versa. When I studied Sanskrit, the same Classical tradition was applied also to Sanskrit, and translating English to Sanskrit was an integral part of the course and the examinations.
Throughout my career, I have found it an important tool from time to time to be able to express a thought in Sanskrit. This is especially important when dealing with New Age thought . For example, how does one express the common expression, “body, mind and spirit” in Sanskrit. In most Anglophone circles, this is an uncontroversial characterization of the “whole” human being. Yet, it’s hard to put into idiomatic Sanskrit. And when you try, you find that what comes out more easily and naturally is “मनोवाक्काय”. That in turn becomes a very interesting difference to reflect upon, and shows – among other things – independently sourced New Age thought being superimposed on Indian cultural transfers.
So, I think being able to think in Sanskrit, even a little bit, is extremely beneficial for any student of Indian culture. I would go so far as to say it is essential for serious interpretative work.
Many thanks, Dominik. Your example adds an interesting perspective to the topic.
I have begun reading out loud to myself, on the suggestion of some senior scholars whose Sanskrit fluency I admire. I have found this helps me significantly in my retention of the material. While I’m not yet “thinking” in Sanskrit, I am remembering more (I have begun to put some kāvya to memory, as well).
The other suggestion was to read kāvya (again, out loud) along with commentaries, I think because it increases vocabulary, familiarity with Pāṇinian grammar, and rephrases material in the ways you suggest. Plus, it’s enjoyable!
Thank you, Malcolm, and congratulations for being able to enjoy kāvya!
It is a thought provoking post. I agree with some of the prescriptions in that post to enable one to ‘think in Sanskrit’ as a way of getting into the mind of the Sanskrit writer.
While reading the post and comments on it, I was wondering if the prescriptions therein are universally valid. Perhaps they are but I would like to offer something which comes near to a counterfactual.
When you are a native Indian speaking Hindi or Tamil or so, and are quite fluent in the written and spoken idiom and are not daunted by recent premodern texts in them, the suggestion to ‘think in Sanskrit’ may be slightly superfluous. The reason goes back to what we mean by ‘thinking in Sanskrit’. I take it the phrase means understanding the textual or commentarial idiom immediately upon hearing it (āpātamātram) without having to renegotiate it in one’s mind by means of alternate phrase or sentence structures or other elaborate methods of recasting the original passage.
I submit that at least in Tamil ( which alone I can speak for) the gloss texts (of the type which Sri Uttamūr Swami Vīrarāghavāchārya and other Srivaishnava Acharyas in the 1970s and later used to write) follow the idiom and communication style of the original. I’ve heard the same being said of many Advaita texts (like the vivekacūdāmaṅi or sūta saṁhitā) which have Tamil renderings or glosses. I have also read parts of Raghuvamsa with Mallinātha commentary with a Tamil gloss. I’ve generally found it easier and more rewarding than resorting to the Man for All Seasons, M R Kale.
In summary, I submit that the ‘thinking’ that’s talked about in the post is, to a large measure, a synonym for the idiom and style of the commentator. In Indian languages such as Tamil which have a tradition of receiving and teaching Sanskrit commentaries, the presence of a parallel idiom and style tradition (or should I say, ‘register’) more or less completely bridges the temporal and linguistic gaps.
On a lighter note, people I know who prefer condensations and digests of original material in modern language avoid writings of people like the Uttamūr Swami saying it ‘drips with ghee’ – shorthand for a somewhat gaga idiom and style 🙂
Many thanks for these interesting comments (and apologies you had to wait to see them published).
I am sure you are right concerning the distinct experience of a native speaker of Hindī, which is clearly different than the one of, say, a native speaker of Japanese while reading Sanskrit. Still, I am also sure that knowing Hindī is way not enough to understand Sanskrit. You can at best understand most (not all) words, but still have no idea about how to connect them, so that your āpātapratīti will probably be wrong, especially if you are reading a complicated śāstric text and not just a narrative passage (where common sense can help you more).
Could you explain more in which sense you think that a Tamil speaker could be “closer” to a Sanskrit text? Because they share a closer worldview (e.g., they don’t have problems understanding why cows and pots are mentioned that often as examples)?
Last, I am really pleased by your mention of Sri Uttamūr Swami Vīrarāghavāchārya, since I really enjoy his writings. When you speak of his “gloss texts”, do you mean his works in Tamil? (I am asking because I read some of his commentaries in Sanskrit on Sanskrit texts and a commentary in Tamil of a Maṇipravāḷa text, I would be interested in comparing them with possible glosses in Tamil of Sanskrit texts.)
I know this is a very old post. My Point of View is as follows. In order to think in Sanskrit the best bet is try to converse in Sanskrit. Often you will notice when we go to another country or state( in India) where a different language is spoken, we will somehow speak , correct or not, in the local language and make ends meet and slowly you do not think and translate and speak you just speak.
I think you are right, but it can also change according to the learning method of the person at stake. Some people are more visual and become, e.g., great scholars of Hittite without ever having thought of speaking it.
Greetings from sunny Mauritius!
Many thanks for this thought-provoking post. My apologies for this late comment.
Considering my own experience, I observed that somehow language influences the thinking/production of thoughts in me. Now, the crux is in the absence of Sanskrit language competency I may not be able to think of certain Sanskrit concepts/ideas. For instance: ‘Dharma’, ‘Aum’, and ‘Maya’ have no equivalence in other languages, although other languages try to explain these terms as closely as possible. This means that a native or a person with Sanskrit competency will be able to think of ‘Maya’ and ‘Aum’ and may have better understanding/comprehension. Whilst, my friend who does not know Sanskrit will have difficulties in both thinking and comprehending these terms. All this means that it will be advantageous for a learner to have a good knowledge of Sanskrit to be able to think and grasp Sanskrit contents. Cheers Yashvin
thanks for the comment. I don’t completely agree, since I don’t think that speaking Sanskrit automatically gives one competence into the intricacies of complex philosophical topics such as māyā. I agree about the necessity to think along the texts in their own terms, but I think that this can be learned. Don’t you?