________________
168
Johannes Bronkhorst
the same subject matter. Modern Sanskrit scholars—with the exception of some very few who study living traditional scholars and their ideas in their own right-concentrate on the past: on a particular period in the past, or on the development of certain ideas through a certain length of time. Traditional Sanskrit scholars, on the other hand, embody the present state of the tradition to which they belong.
This may be true, but it does not change the fact that both modern and traditional Sanskrit scholars study by and large the same texts. Moreover, if it is true, as is often maintained, that the traditional scholars are linked to the authors of the texts they study through an unbroken tradition, their interpretation of those texts will be more reliable than that by modern scholars, because it can make use of elements to which the modern scholar has no access, except by consulting the traditional scholar. Once again the question imposes itself whether anything is left for modern scholars to do beyond trying to become traditional scholars themselves.
Modern scholars may have reservations with regard to the unbroken tradition sometimes invoked by traditional scholars. In this they can draw inspiration from Dharmakīrti, the famous Buddhist philosopher who was confronted with the same argument from the side of the Mīmāmsakas. The latter claimed that not only the Veda, but also its explanation (i.e. the interpretation offered by the Mimamsakas) was not made by human or other living beings (apauruseya), because it had been handed down by an unbroken tradition (sampradāyāvicchedāt).' Dharmakīrti is not impressed and points out that cases are known where traditions have been changed for various reasons. That is to say, the modern scholar's sceptical attitude is not new, and the history of Indian thought itself provides examples of such an attitude.
I will discuss some concrete examples where it can be maintained that modern Sanskrit scholarship has its mite to contribute. These examples have been taken from my own recent research. They are just examples meant to illustrate a possible justification of modern Sanskrit scholarship besides traditional Sanskrit scholarship. I will begin with a general question: the question whether and to what extent it is possible to understand Indian philosophy.
How can Indian philosophy be understood This question may look surprising at first. At closer inspection, however, I assume that all of us have sometimes wondered how this or that thinker, or this or that school of thought, could have adhered to their sometimes quite extraordinary doctrines. We may doubt whether we really understand these doctrines, and what is more, we may wonder whether the thinkers
1 Dharmakirti, Pramāņavārttikasvavrtti, ed. Pandeya p. 350 I. 4: vedavad vyakhyanam
apy anády apauruseyam sampradayavicchedad agatam tato 'rthasiddhih.