Making the Argument for Sanskrit

[Lars Martin Fosse]

In addition to the remarks I made below in support of George Hart's
argument, I would like to add another argument which I believe is relevant
to the scaling of Indological and South Asian studies at Western
universities: the enormous dimensions of the subject! As a cultural and
linguistic region, India is VAST. Sanskrit literature and culture is equally
vast, and complex. This means that a proper understanding of India, its
languages, society and culture requires a rich flora of academic positions
and good number of Indological / South Asian institutes. The down-scaling we
are now seeing will a few years from now probably be seen as a serious
mistake. The problem is that so much modern university politics are driven
by student number considerations, not the need for knowledge and competence
in the absolute sense of the word. This means that we must also address the
politicians, not simply the university deans who often have to act with both
hands tied behind their backs.

Lars Martin Fosse
 

From: 
Dr.art. Lars Martin Fosse 
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114, 
0674 Oslo - Norway 
Phone: +47 22 32 12 19 Fax:  +47 850 21 250 
Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45 
E-mail: lmfosse at chello.no 
http://www.linguistfinder.com/translators.asp?id=2164



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of 
> Lars Martin Fosse
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 5:25 PM
> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Making the Argument for Sanskrit
> 
> I support George Hart's point of view here. The strongest 
> argument for Sanskrit is the fact that the language is 
> fundamental to the understanding of India's cultural and 
> religious tradition, combined with the fact that India is an 
> emerging global power with a vast economic, military and 
> political potential. Understanding India is important, not 
> simply for intellectual and philosophical reasons, although 
> they are important enough, but because it is materially 
> important for ourself. Trying to deal with societies which we 
> don't understand can easily set us on the road to perdition, 
> as we have seen clearly during the last few years.
> 
> Lars Martin Fosse
> 
>  
> 
> From: 
> Dr.art. Lars Martin Fosse
> Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
> 0674 Oslo - Norway
> Phone: +47 22 32 12 19 Fax:  +47 850 21 250 Mobile phone: +47 
> 90 91 91 45
> E-mail: lmfosse at chello.no
> http://www.linguistfinder.com/translators.asp?id=2164
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf 
> Of George 
> > Hart
> > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:42 PM
> > To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: Making the Argument for Sanskrit
> > 
> > I find myself perplexed, to say the least, that apparently the most 
> > potent argument for Sanskrit is that it has influenced a few (dead) 
> > white men.  Surely Kalidasa and Ilango did not care in the 
> slightest 
> > what white people would think of their work.  And certainly 
> any dean 
> > approached about the importance of Sanskrit would be 
> puzzled at these 
> > arguments.  South Asia contains about 1.5 billion people.
> > Their cultures and ways of thought have been deeply 
> influenced by the 
> > classical tradition contained in Sanskrit (and Tamil).  Are 
> we then to 
> > argue that the importance of Sanskrit is that it influenced 
> > Oppenheimer or Eliot in some minor way?  Is this not slightly 
> > narcissistic?  George Hart
> >