Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c27.s2: 2. The Characteristics of the Scientific Literature

A History of Sanskrit Literature c27.s2

Language
English

2. The Characteristics of the Scientific Literature

c27.s2.1

Owing to its inheritance of Vedic tradition, Sanskrit science greatly affected the Sūtra form of composition. The exact causes of this development in the Vedic literature must remain obscure; paucity of writing material, expense in procuring it, or similar causes can hardly be seriously adduced. Rather it may be ascribed to the character of the teaching of the schools, which was oral and always in a sense esoteric. The teacher expounded his subject orally, and it was convenient but also sufficient to sum up the pith of his discourse in short sentences, which would be significant to those who knew the key to their meaning but of little import to those who did not. The plan remained in use¹ beyond all in the philosophical schools, where doctrines were as in the Upaniṣads something sacred and secret, and it is precisely this character which renders the Sūtras of the philosophical schools so enigmatic, and allows, for instance, the *Brahma Sūtra* to become the source of quite distinct and even incompatible doctrines. But a decisive step was taken when the Sūtras were supplemented by the composition of Bhāṣyas written in a new and interesting style. It is based on the principle of reproducing the dialogue between teacher and student, and, moreover, is often cast in the form of adducing a topic, then bringing forward a partial solution, or prima facie view (*pūrvapakṣa*), which is dealt with, corrected, and revised in the final opinion (*siddhānta*). We need not suppose that the objections discussed were always really views held; the style once adopted naturally would lead to the positing of possible objections, and indeed this form of putting the matter is not at all rare, the abbreviated form of words *iti cen na*, being used to denote, 'if so and so is put forward, then we reply that this is not the case,' for the reason which is then introduced.

c27.s2.2

¹ See, e. g., the late *Āyurvedasūtra* (Madras, 1922), which is based on old and 15th-century work.

c27.s2.3

The style of the Bhāṣyas undergoes a clear development; Çaṅkara, for instance, is more advanced than the *Mahābhāṣya* on the grammar of Pāṇini or the Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana on the *Nyāya Sūtra*. We pass from a reproduction of a discussion to an essay or lecture, and later still is developed the very stiff, if scientific, philosophical style which appears equally in the hand-books of poetics and in such sciences as philosophy and law. The essence¹ of it lies in the insistence on the use of nouns only, verbs being practically eliminated, and in the pregnant employment of particles and of case relations, together with the use of compounds, sometimes of great length. It may be admitted that it is possible to attain great precision in this manner, for in a technical subject-matter compounds can be used so rigidly as to be clear in sense, even when long and complex, but on the other hand it is impossible to regard such products as literature. The Sūtras also have a serious effect on all future work, for they are normally regarded as definitive, and therefore not to be altered, checking development in the substance of the science. A partial way out was found in the case of grammar, where Vārttikas grew up to correct or modify the Sūtras of Pāṇini, but the term Vārttika is not applied in the case of other sciences, though we have in Vātsyāyana occasional sentences which might be deemed Vārttikas to the *Nyāya Sūtra*.² On the other hand we come here and there in philosophic works upon Sūtras which are not preserved in our Sūtra texts.

c27.s2.4

¹ Jacobi, IF. xiv. 236 ff. ; V. G. Paranjpe, *Le Vârtika de Kâtyâyana*, pp. 50 ff., who compares the *Mīmāṅsā Sūtra* and the *Mahābhāṣya*.

c27.s2.5

² Cf. Windisch, *Über das Nyāyabhâshya* (1888).

c27.s2.6

The formal Sūtra style never grew obsolete,³ and it is pre-dominant in Grammar, appears in the leading work on Metrics, was often adopted in Poetics, was normal in the great schools of Philosophy, and is claimed for the *Arthaçāstra*, in which, how-ever, in the leading text we have a complex of Sūtra and Bhāṣya in one by the same hand which deviates distinctly from the orthodox style, and the same remark applies to the *Kāmasūtra*. The *Bhāratīya Nāṭyaçāstra* contains here and there reminiscences of the Sūtra style, but it has passed over on the whole to a differ-ent form of composition, that of Çlokas.

c27.s2.7

³ Thus the *Āyurvedasūtra* (*Bibl. Sansk.*, 61) is quite a modern composition, as proved by the learned editor, Dr. R. Shamasastry. In scientific works, medicine, architecture, astrology, incorrect and barbarous Sanskrit is common; cf. *Vidyāmā-dhavīya*, intr.

c27.s2.8

The discussions at the Sabhās held by kings and rich patrons were undoubtedly in some measure responsible for the form of exposition. Any new doctrine which desired to establish itself was only able to do so, if its supporter could come forward on such an occasion and by his advocacy secure the verdict of those assembled and the favour of the king or patron of the assembly. Doubtless this accounts in large measure for the scholastic and dialectic type of Indian scientific literature, including many of its worst features. In philosophy, for instance, it is extremely irritating to find really profound thoughts interrupted by what are merely scholastic and pedantic arguments, where a clear exposition would be far more attractive to western taste. To the readers of the works of the philosophers, however, such a form of literature would have appeared dry and over-simple, though the appalling results of scholastic subtlety can be seen in the fact that the whole of logical literature after Gaṅgeça, and all the commentaries on the Vaiçeṣika philosophy after Udayana could be spared without any real loss to Sanskrit literature.

c27.s2.9

In the great period of Sanskrit literature at any rate experimental science was at a low ebb, and little of importance was accomplished in those fields in which experiment is essential.¹ Medicine developed a considerable knowledge of symptoms and treatment of diseases, but surgery was banned by reason of the Brahmanical and general Indian fear of impurity through contact with the dead, and the acceptance of demoniac sources of disease hampered serious research. The mathematical achievements of India lay in the field of algebra and in the invention of a valuable system of notation. Far more was accomplished in fields of human action; if political theory never reached any high development, legal studies were conducted with much acumen. The form of the Dharmaçāstras corresponds in an interesting manner with the more humane character of their contents. They are handed down in Çlokas, for which we have in the Dharmasūtras, of which they are ultimately descendants, occasional memorial verses summing up or illustrating doctrines. In verse form maxims on human life naturally won far greater circulation than prose Sūtras, and this form of composition, which was unquestionably aided by the example of the epic, was often adopted for scientific works, even in non-humanistic branches of learning. The Çloka was easy to write and easy to remember, but not unnaturally it did not content all authors, some of whom, like Varāhamihira and Bhāskara in the field of astrology and mathematics, proceeded to develop their scientific doctrines in elegant and complex metres. In other cases the Āryā, which, like the Çloka, is a comparatively simple metre, won acceptance, as in the *Sāṁkhyakārikā*, in which the doctrines of the Sāṁkhya philosophy were succinctly set forth. Technical science was often reduced to roughly fashioned Çlokas which were popular for medical recipes, though even for those we find cases of more complex metres being employed. But there remained instead the alternative of a prose exposition with verses interspersed here and there to corroborate or sum up or illustrate doctrines laid down, as is the case with the medical Saṁhitās.

c27.s2.10

¹ B. Seal (*The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus*) holds a much more favourable view, but he reads new ideas into old texts. The influence of western science has now evoked brilliant reactions in India, including a revolution in our ideas of plant life.

c27.s2.11

A phenomenon of interest, common to prose and verse alike, is the tendency to use homely metaphors or similes and to illustrate doctrines by the facts of ordinary life. The danger of such illustrations was, of course, not avoided; similitudes were held to explain difficulties, without realization that they did not cover adequately the ground; the lamp which illumines itself is given us to explain self-consciousness, without recognition that the parallel is really misleading. But a number of popular illustrations became hardened into regular use, and figure as Nyāyas.¹ Thus the grammatical principle that the more important element in a compound coupling two things should come first is popularized and generally used as a scientific principle, *abhyarhitaṁ pūrvam*. The amusing proverb *avatapte nakulasthitam*, ‘a mongoose's standing on hot ground,’ serves to describe the man who does not stick to his undertaking. The expert who forgets his rules is hit by the proverb, *açvārūḍhāḥ kathaṁ cāçvān vismareyuḥ sacetanāḥ*, ‘How could intelligent people, when sitting on horses, forget their mounts?’ A painful dilemma is well expressed by *ito vyāghra itas taṭī*, ‘A tiger on the one side, a precipice on the other.’ An embarrassing position is not badly described as *ubhayataḥpāçā rajjuḥ*, ‘a rope which binds at both ends.’ The *tṛṇabhakṣaṇanyāya* illustrates submission, for the ancient Indian usage spared the man who took grass in his mouth to signify that he yielded himself to the mercy of the conqueror. Wasted effort is expressed by the maxim of *çvapucchonnamana*, ‘trying to straighten a dog’s tail.’ The united effect of words in conveying meaning is likened to the joint action of men in lifting a palanquin, *çibikodyacchannaravat*. Quaint and interesting is a very old Nyāya: *mahārṇavayugacchidrakūrmagrīvārpaṇanyāya*, ‘the chance of a tortoise putting its neck into the hole of a yoke which is floating about on the mighty ocean.’ The allusion is to a thing of great difficulty, illustrated by the mere chance which would cause a tortoise, which comes to the surface once only in a hundred years, accomplishing the difficult feat referred to.

c27.s2.12

¹ See Jacob, *Laukikanyāyāñjali*, 3 pts., 1908 ff.

c27.s2.13

A characteristic which in greater or less degree pervades the whole of the scientific literature is the love of subdivision and of inventing distinctions. Everything has to be schematized without regard to the nature of the subject-matter. Thus in the *Kāmasūtra* even the meticulous specification of detail of this kind is carried out with perfect solemnity, and in the sphere of international relations as treated in the *Arthaçāstra*, in lieu of concrete investigation of actual relations between historical tribes, we have a complete scheme of theoretical connexions based on the possibility of relations with adjacent and more distant kingdoms.¹ The historical method in fact is normally lacking, yielding to the more attractive habit of analysis of a somewhat superficial character and deduction from bases which have not been sufficiently established. In the subdivisions of which India is so fond there is often much ingenuity in finding legitimate grounds of distinction, but there is always present the tendency to lose sight of the broad and important lines of demarcation while concentrating on minutiae. Moreover the practice of accepting as given what has been traditionally handed down has a serious effect. It often results in ingenious efforts to reinterpret the old, in lieu of frankly abandoning it, thus causing waste of energy in subtleties, as when the traditional account of inference is rendered quite differently with equal assurance by each commentator.¹ In other cases it brings about the acceptance and defence by sophistic grounds of what is plainly untenable. There was, of course, constant progress, for instance in the sphere of law, but it was hampered by the necessity of making out that change was not really taking place, and that new customs were really allowed by Manu or some other Smṛti. In astronomy we see even a competent author like Brahmagupta attacking sensible innovations of Āryabhaṭa on the score that they depart from traditional knowledge.

c27.s2.14

¹ Narendranath Law, *Inter-State Relations in Ancient India* (1920).

c27.s2.15

¹ Cf. A. B. Dhruva, POCP. 1919, ii. 251 ff.

c27.s2.16

Poetical form moreover was often injurious. It led to the use of redundant expressions merely to fill up the verses, or on the other hand to undue condensation and ellipsis, with resulting obscurity. Clearness was much furthered by the adoption of the later scientific style which is seen at its best probably in the expositions of law and in the works on poetics; Vijñāneçvara, Ānandavardhana, and Ruyyaka in their prose expositions prove decisively the superiority of this form to the obscurity left by the use of verse. The controversy which exists as to the exact meaning of Bhāmaha’s description of the Ākhyāyikā and Kathā would have been avoided had he written in prose.²

c27.s2.17

² i. 27, giving the characteristics of a mark of the poet’s imagination and of containing the seizure of a maiden, a struggle, separation, and the hero’s triumph, is held by Dé (BSOS. iii. 507) to apply to the Ākhyāyikā, by Nobel (*Indian Poetry*, p. 157) to refer to the Kathā. Both agree in censuring Daṇḍin for misunderstanding Bhāmaha, which in the circumstances is amusing.

Linked texts (10)