[Buddha-l] sanskrit self-study

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Some general reflections:

In the case of German, Japanese etc., there are many pedagogic evaluations
available of the different ways of teaching the language concerned and
consequently of the textbooks. Such is not at all the reality in the case of
introductory (or intermediate) Sanskrit. Some programs have been laid out by
Sanskrit teachers and lovers of the language in India. Almost all of them
concern primary and high school students who speak at home an Indian
language that routinely uses a large number of Sanskrit words. The only work
which tries to study the Sanskrit teaching scene by taking into account the
materials developed for adult students in the Western world is, as far as I
know, a thesis written by Dr. Iwona Milewska. I do not know the title of the
thesis. The authoress can be contacted at <imilews at Vela.filg.uj.edu.pl>  or
at Institute of Oriental Philology, Jagiellonian University, Al. Mickiewicza
9/11,  31-120 Krakow, Poland, if the 2002 address I have is still valid.
 
In the absence of evaluations done by trained language teachers or by
education faculty researchers following the appropriate evaluative
methodology consistently, the preferences of present-day Sanskrit
instructors tend to be determined by their memories of how they learned the
language or by what they personally find fascinating beyond the introduction
to basic grammar and vocabulary (i.e., by such features as the inclusion of
Indo-European cognates, Paa.ninian terminology, use of the Epic stories,
etc.). 
 
In this context, we should also be mindful of the fact that most of the
present-day Sanskrit instructors are not trained language teachers but
teachers of religion, philosophy etc. who teach a course or two in Sanskrit
out of awareness of the importance of the language as a human heritage or
because of practical considerations.
 
Further, the Sanskrit teaching field has not been able to shake off
completely the legacy of the days in which Greek and/or Latin were commonly
taught in schools. As a consequence, textbooks that (a) set realistic goals
in terms of grammar and vocabulary for the different levels of Sanskrit
learning, (b) include readings allowing untedious repetition of the most
essential grammar and vocabulary, and (c) anticipate the clarifications
which the present generation of students needs are very few in number.
 
There is also what I call a 'term/semester/quarter-grammar curse.' For the
life of me, I cannot figure out why it has become a sacrosanct institution
at American and European universities that all the grammar of Sanskrit,
regardless of how much of it is frequently needed, is taught in a 10-13 week
period. With this approach, the students begin to drop-out almost as soon as
the course begins. Those who survive the course, find that, 2-3 months after
the course, they remember only a few quaint grammatical terms like 'gerund,"
"gerundive" and "aorist," and hardly anything of Sanskrit itself. Even the
unusually intelligent ones among the survivors usually have a poor grasp of
Sanskrit syntax. 
 
At the "Sanskrit in Asia" conference that took place in Bangkok from 23-26
June 2005, a panel on Sanskrit teaching was held. Drs. Sally
Sutherland-Goldman, Francis Brassard, Kala Acharya and I participated. Some
of the points I orally made (please do not ask for detailed written
arguments or evidence at this time), in addition to the 'curse' one in the
preceding paragraph, were the following:
            1. There is no scientific way to decide if a language is
difficult or easy. The talk of "easy' and "difficult" makes sense when a
learner is accustomed only to a language family different from that of the
target language and, perhaps, when a language with a very advanced
civilizational vocabulary is compared with a language spoken in a materially
less developed community (typically tribal languages belong to the latter
variety, but even in their case it is quite likely that they may have a very
rich vocabulary for trees, plants, animals, etc. that the seemingly advanced
languages lack in their commonly used forms). In morphology and syntax,
which really define a language, what one language accomplishes with one type
of device the other language accomplishes with another type of device. The
devices are only different, neither easy nor difficult in a scientifically
measurable way. 
            2. The problems of Sanskrit teaching do not come from the
language. They owe their origin to the instructors, the teaching tools that
are available, the way most of the Sanskrit texts have been published and
the unwillingness shown to break away from teaching traditions and
unrealistic expectations. There is very little awareness in the field that
we need different teaching goals, methods and materials for the would-be
learners. A broader view of education as personal enrichment (not simply as
a tool to produce professors and researchers) also needs to assert itself in
the field. 
 
To the preceding comments occasioned by some of the opinions/views I read in
the earlier postings, I would like to add one more:
            It is possible to learn Sanskrit without the guidance of a
teacher (and without much hardship), provided one has good study habits (a
little bit of studying everyday, etc.). I have so far seen at least five
students accomplish this feat at my university (contrary to the impression
the pronouncements of its President may create, the University of British
Columbia does not uniformly attract super-bright students). Only one of
these students knew a language of India that was related to Sanskrit.

Sanskrit teachers! Let us jointly put to rest the myth that Sanskrit is a
difficult language to learn!

ashok aklujkar