SANSKRIT ACROSS THE HIMALAYAS

-NIRMAL C. SINHA
I

It is a common place of Oriental studies that India has shared the heritage
of Sanskrit with other countries. On purely philological considerations the
ancient-most Sanskrit is the matrix of the speeches of more than half of man-
kind through ancient and modern times. On deeper philosophical considera-
tions Sanskrit is reputed to have made profound impact on foreign mind,
Mleccha or Yavana. The response to Vedanta or Kalidasa of distant foreigner
from Plato and Plotinus to Scbopenbauer and William Jones has so much
exercised the imagination of our scholars that the role of Sanskrit in the cultural
milieu of our neighbours is often overlooked. Countries across the Himalayas
happened to be most important acquisitions of Sanskrit abroad and yet more
than the Trans-Himalayan highlands other lands interest Indian Sanskritists.
This is despite the fact that India produced two pioneers in the field, namely,
Sarat Chandra Das and Rahul Sankrityayana. I have no claim to be
a Sanskrit scholar. It is only as a student of history, specializing in the sur-
vivals of Indian culture abroad, that I venture to present the contribution
of Tibet and Mongolia to Sanskrit through the ages. The story of Indian
Panditas and their Bhota collaborators is an edifying chapter in the history
of Asia.
The history of Asia is a sort of triangular complex composed of Iranic,
Sanskritic and Sinic traditions. Much of Asian history is the product of per-
mutation and combination of the three. In Northern Buddhist terms, history
is a process of flux and there is no set pattern in history except the Dharma,'
and strange are the ways of the Dharma. The encounter between Sanskrit
and other traditions had thus no fixed norm in history. It is now well known
that in the confines of Indic sub-continent Sanskrit yielded, in different ways,
to Irano-Persian and Sino-Mongoloid encroachments while in the highlands
of Trans-Himalayas Sanskrit most successfully encountered Iranic and Sinic
traditions, both in linguistic form and literary expression.
Yet the Sanskrit which accomplished this Digvijaya, from Kashmir to
Kokonor or from Bangala to Baikala, had no title to high caste; this Sanskrit
hardly conformed to the grammar or finesse of what is called Vedic or Classical
form. Buddha Siikyamuni is known to have spoken the dialects of the diverse .
regions. In short Buddha did not preach in "perfected and refined form"
which happened to be the preserve of the BrahmaJ)a and the ~atriya. So
Sanskrit, Vedic or Classical, was first ruled out "for the profit of the many,
for the bliss of the many and out of compassion for the world", Yet Sanskrit
and nothing but Sanskrit was found worthy and capable of expressing or ex-
pounding the Perfected Wisdom or Transcendental Learning. Thus the texts
of Prajiiiipiiramitii and the commentaries and dissertations of the saints and
scholars from Nagarjuna (c. 150) to AtiSa (c. 980-1054) happened to be in

Reproduced from ProceedillKsofthe First International ScuUkrit Conferellce 1972 (New

Delhi, 1975).

18
 Sanskrit which Brahmanical and Hindu scholars described as bad or impure
Sanskrit. Recently. some western scholars have started calling this medium
Hybrid Sanskrit. Nepali scholars and Vajracaryas are also not happy with
the label Hybrid as Nepal for centuries has preserved the learning enshrined
in Buddhist Sanskrit and for a century now has been helping the modem
scholars to explore the esoteric texts in this medium. The Buddhist Sanskrit
had to be bad or impure. as conformity to Vedic or Classical grammar would
have made the new lore more obscure and less open than the ancient one.
The spirit of tolerance and the anxiety for adaptation, which made Buddhism
. the national creed wherever the Dharma migrated. accounted for the histpric
success of Sanskrit Buddhism outside India, particularly in Tibet and
Mongolia.
II
"The waters of Ganga made fertile the arid steppes of Inner Asia". That
is how a German scholar had described the great efflorescence of Buddhist
literature in the sands and snows of Inner Asia. The Bhagiratha who took
the stream to the arid north was in the grateful imagination of Northern
Buddhists, come from Varanasi. where Buddha Sakyamuni had turned the
Wheel of Law. In trans~Himalayan legend the Sacred Lotus after it withered
away in Varanasi blossomed in Lhasa, and the Master's "body, speech and
mind" made a re-appearance in the Trans-Himalayan highlands. Lhasa
in welcoming Sanskrit was no doubt sheltering the language of the Land of
Enlightenment and Bod-skad (Tibetan) as the medium of the Dharma became
as sacred as Sanskrit. The layout, content and presentation of Tibetan
canon and all later works down to the last days of Lamaism have been such
that a Nepali Vajraclirya proud of his country having been the refuge of
Sanskrit learning has no hesitation to describe Bod-skad (Tibetan) as Lhasa
Sanskrit. By the label Lhasa Sanskrit a Nepali Buddhist would not merely
imply that the Tibetan script is derived from Sanskrit source but also acclaim
that Tibetan literature preserves the treasures of Sanskrit literature. Much
of the original are lost to the world today while most of the remnants
in Sanskrit the world owes to the care and zeal of Nepali scholars during the
centuries when Sanskrit learning in the Land of Enlightenment was in shade.
Western sholarship would testify further that the monastic universities in
Tibet and Mongolia not merely preserved the treasures of Sanskrit but also
developed the Sanskrit traditions in their seats. Thus Logic and Metaphysics,
Medicine and Chemistry from India flourished in Sakya, Tashilhunpo,
Drepung. Derge. Kumbum and Urga.
Why the legendary author of Tibetan alphabet, ThomiSambhota, did
not seek inspiration for a script from the great neighbouring country in the
east, has puzzled many Sinologists today. As the medium of expression in
the Celestial Empire, the Chinese script had a sanctity of its own. Mastery
of the ideograph was a hall~mark of academic and bureaucratic power inside
the Middle Kingdom while beyond the outermost frontiers of the Middle
Kingdom the ideograph was a symbol of culture. A barbarian speaking the
Celestial language was a lesser barbarian and if a barbarian could read and
write the script his access to power and privilege in the Celestical court was
ensured. Besides dissemination of Chinese language and Chinese script
beyond the Han frontiet:s was a fundamental principle of imperial statecraft
throughout history. Thus the Manchu, the Mongol and even the Turki
(Uighur) had to accept Chinese language and script for varying periods to

19
varying degrees and the vertical form was adopted in Manchu and Mongol
scripts. An American Sinologist has therefore described the Tibetan escape
from Chinese language and script as an inexplicable phenomenon. The
truth of the matter is that the Tibetan speech i~ not as near the Han as many
Sinologists presume. If the term Mongoloid is used in a wide sense both
Tibetan and Chinese languages are Mongoloid languages. Tibetan is also
a tonal speech like Chinese but Tibetan is not so predominantly monosyllabic
as Chinese. Even if there are affinities, as presumed by some Sinologists,
an ideograph established in one language is not necessarily adequate for the
imagery and idiom of another. While linguistics and morphology conceal
the secrets of failure of Chinese ideograph in Tibet. Tibetans have their own
explanation for the success of Sanskrit Ak~ara. Sixteen years ago in Tashil-
hunpo and Drepung I made enquiries as to why the pictograph was found
unsuitable for transcription of Tibetan speech and how did Thomi Sambhota
and his colleagues adjudicate the claims of different Indo-Iranian and
Mediterranean scripts. I had in mind that the Brahmi script was possibly
an import from the west of Saptasindhll and that in the first half of the seventh
century Kharosthi and several other scripts were prevalent in the regions
west and northwest of Tibet. The answer of the Tibetan scholars was,
however, as simple as the Tibetan mind. I was told that there was no need
to adjudicate the merits of different phonetic scripts known to Thomi and
his friends. The need for a script had arisen out of the need for translating
Buddhist texts in Tibetan language. It was thus "a good acr' or "a natural
process", interdependent on the other processes of Dharma as in Prafit),asa-
mutpiida. Thus the script had to be looked for in the same region from where
came the Sacred Books. The process did not end with the Srara V.r0l1ialla
of Sanskrit or the hori7..0ntal Ri/pa from left to right. The Tibetan book,
though made of paper, did not follow the format of Chinese scroll but adopted
the palm-leaf format of India. An honorific designation for a Tibetan loose-
leaf book is Poti derived from Snnskrit PunthijPustika. Indic or Sanskritic
sentiments for books and learning have influenced Tibetan mind ever since.
To start with. the invention of alphabet was treated as a divine gift as in
Sanskrit tradition; Brahmi was reputed to have come from the mouth of
Brahma. It is not certain whether Thomi Sambhota. the formulator of
alphabet, devised his set of thirty letters from the archaic Nilgari (Ranjana/
Lantsha) or from Kashmiri (Sarada) characters. What is certain and in-
disputable, both among Tibetan believers and modern scholars. is that the
Tibetan alphabet was of Brahmi origin. It is curious that while the words
Brahmi and Nagari were obsolete in many Indian vernaculars by the begin-
ning of the nineteenth c.entury, these words were current among the Lamas
and other learned people al\ over the Tibetan-speaking world. A Sanskrit-
Tibetan Thesaurus of 1771 from Kham enters the word Brahml with its Tibetan
equivalent as the first item under the head "speech'" This was undoubtedly
following the ancient Sanskrit tradition. For instance, the Lalita\';.~tara list
of sixty-four kinds of writing begins with Brahmf. 1t is relevant to point
out that in India the term BrAhml was n re-discovery towards the middle of
the nineteenth century, thanks to archaeologists and epigraphists. ]n Tibet
terms like Ak~ara, Sabda, Viik or Vanta carne to be sanctified exactly as in
India and each term was most meticulously translated to convey the different
meaning under different contexts. The veneration for Aklara as in traditional
India was fully reflected in Tibet in handling of books as if they were icons.
I was surprised to notice such usale in Tibe~ in 19S5-56. A Tibetan book
even if it be on a mundane matter, cannot be left on the floor or cast away

20
 1ike an old pair of shoes. The Imperishable Obj~t, ~s !he Sacred Letter
or Aklara, is the heart of the matter. Much later to Slkklm I had another
experience. A signboard w~rning the visitors to tak,e off their sh~ while
entering the temple was fixed right on the floor. The signboard was Intended
mainly for the foreigners and the trilingual inscription : Tibetan. Hindi and
English, was my responsibility, On protest against the written word being
on the floor I had proposed that the Tibetan inscription could be erased and
the signboard left as it was. An ordinary man, who was not a monk or priest.
protested that Nagari script being the matrix was more sacred tban even the
Tibetan, The signboard had to be raised a few inches from the floor but
still today no Tibetan or Sikkimese would keep his shoes near that trilingual
. )nscription, The Tibetan veneration for NagarI as the kin of Brihmi should
.~ be an enlightenment to several Indian scholars who, having read Sanskrit in
".the Western seats of Occidental learning, champion transcription of Sanskrit
works in Roman and would discard Nagari as internationally less honourable
.than Roman. I am not a linguist nor by any means am good in reading
scripts obsolete in our country today, But for me the most important evidence
of Indian culture in Sikkim, Tibet and even the Baikals has been the most
ubiquitous presence of the Six Mystic Syllables OM-MA-NI-PAD-ME-HUM
on rocks and boulders, sflipas and temples, prayer-wheels and altars; and I had
not the least doubt on my first sight of Six Mystic Syllables that the Tibetan
Ak$ara was a Riipa of Sanskrit Ak,~ara.

The Tibetan veneration for the Sacred Letter from the Land of
Enlightenment was also expressed in calling the vowels and consonants as
Ali and Kali, the two mystic terms used in Tantra but can be traced back
to the Veda. The learned Tibetan unhesitatingly nffirms that Ak$ara goes
back to pre-Buddhist times in Rig-jhe, that is the Veda. The adoration of
Viik and Ak,sara, Brahman and Sarasvati in lJ.g Veda and later literature needs
no presentatiOn to an assemblage of Sanskrilists. What needs emphasis
here is that Sarasvati is the only Vedic deity and for that matter the
only Brahmanical or Hindu deity who is held in highest adoration in
Mahayana pantheon and therefore in Northern Buddhist countries like Tibet
and Mongolia. While other Hindu deities like Brahma, Indra or Ganda
were incorporated in~o M.lhayiina pantheon simply as accessory deities aiding
and serving Buddha Sakvamuni or other Buddhas and while even some Hindu
deities were depicted under the feet of a Buddha or held in utmost ridicule
Sarasvati was admitted as a goddess on her own right. The Mahayana vene:
ration for Samsvati progressed across the Himalayas, and as Yang-chen in
Tibet and Mongolia, Sarasvati is the deity for scholars and laymen alike
irrespective of any sectarian considerations. The Tibetan literature from
Thomi Sambhota down to the twentieth century lIbounds with utterances
and remakrs about the significance nnd sanctity of Sabda Brahman.
III

The translation of the Buddhist canon from Sanskrit into Tibetan has
been universally admitted as the most scientific and yet lucid ever before
the present day UNESCO programme. The national endeavour in Bod-;vut
(Tibet) running through four centuries ma) be best described in esoteric dictlon
as the union of Praj"d (Wisdom) of India and Upiiyakausa[ya (Ingenuity) of
Tibet. Infinite wealth and refinement of Sanskrit had to come to terms with
the originality and independence of Tibetan. Western scholars who have
mastered Iranie. Sanskritic and Sinic languages have not discovered any

21
affinities between Tibetan and any of these groups. Basil Gould and Hugh
Richardson-speaking, reading and writing Tibetan almost like the Bod~pa
(Tibetan}-wrote in 1943 that "Tibetan is widely separated in vocabulary,
grammar and mode of thought from any language with which the learner
is expected to be familiar". Earlier a renowned master of languages, Denison
Ross, had admitted the same, though he felt that his mastery of Russian
was complementary to his mastery of Tibetan and "ice-versa. Knowledge of
Sanskrit, which Denison Ross and Hugh Richardson had acquired before
beginning Tibetan, did, not determine the proficiency of such eminent
Tibetologists.
To obtain the exact meaning of Sanskrit words and phrases Thomi
Sambhota and his successors had first resorted to a servile imitation of Sanskrit
layout and style and ignored the claims of Tibetan syntax. This resulted
in monstrous compositions which misrepresented the potentialities of Sanskrit
and denied the genius of Tibetan language. These translations were later
on considerably revised or altogether replaced; a few ~urvive in the manuscripts
discovered from the Caves of Thousand Buddhas and other sites in the
north and north-west of Tib,~t. In the later or revised translations imagery
and idiom of Sanskrit underwent welcome Tibetanization alon~ with honour-
able acceptance of native idiom imagery. -
No effort was spared to probe into the etymology of a Sabela or to unravel
the aphorisms of Vyiikaraf}a. PaQini and later Saran'ala Vyiikaral,la were
studied with the same zeal as in the Tols in India. Thus while each word
of the original was rendered into its exact appropriate in Tibetan, the Tibetan
syntax was complied with. For every translation there would be one (or
two) Indian scholar knowing Tibetan and one (or two) Tibetan scholar knowing
Sanskrit. For support to translators, compilation of grammars and lexicons
was also taken in hand. For widely used or commonplace terms like Buddha,
Dharma or Sangha uniform sets of equivalents were fixed by a central council
of translators. The result of the translations from the time of Thomi (c. 650)
till the propagation by Atisa (c. 1050) were later incorporated into two en~
cyclopaedic collections called Kanjur and Tanjur. Kanjur stands for Buddh-
avacuna and Tanjur for Siistra. Thus Abhidharma. Prajfiiipiiramita and
Vinaya, the treatises of Nagarjuna, Asailga and Oinnaga or the latest Maha-
yana tracts from Pala Bengal are all enshrined in these ,collections. But for
this faithful and yet idiomatic translation many of the Buddhist Sanskrit
works would have been lost forever. I need not recite the great Mahayana
works recovered by Brian Hodgson and Rahula Sankrityayana or refer to the
Gilgit Manuscripts read by Nalinaksha Out!. I would however remind that
Nagarjuna's Suhrllekha or Dhinaga's Pramii1)asmuccaya are yet to be
discovered.
Through such scientific translations and regular exchanges with Nepali
and Indian scholars, imagery and idiom of Sanskrit became a part and parcel
of Tibetan literature and later, when Mongols embraced the Dharma, of
Mongol literature. This impact is noticed most in the art of dialectics, science
of poetics, and historiography. Buddhist logic with Indian art of polemics
and Indian logician's mannerisms flo<Jrished in refuge in Sakya, Drepung
and Urga. For models of rhetoric and prosody, men of letters in Tibet and
Mongolia invariably referred back to KiivyiiJarsa and such works from India.
Dialectics or poetics were, however, not much developed in Tibet before
the advent of Dharma,. therefore such Indic elements in Tibetan literature

22
were more in the nature of innovations than revolutions. For a true revolu-
tion in Tibetan literature one has to notice the historiographical writings in
Tibet. ]n the beginning, that is, before Sanskrit made its impact, the annals
and chronicles of Tibet were inspired by the Chinese tradition of Shih-chi
(the Record of the Scribe=the Record of a Historian). The Chinese method
of record-keeping meant a meticulous regard for events and their dates. The
Indian tradition of historical writings, as will be accepted by this distinguished
gathering of Sanskritists, was indifferent to mundane happenings and their
chronological sequence. The victory of Buddhism in Tibet was eventually
the victory of Indian attitude to objects mundane. Men of letters, including
historical scholars, submitted to the Indian school of history. The Tibetan
nomenclature for records, Yig-tshang, yielded to a new form Chon-jung
(Chos-hbyung) or the Growth of Religion. As the new nomenclature suggests
the content of chronicles, that is, the subject-matter of history, was now the
Dharma. its origin in India and its growth in the Trans-Himalayas. The
Dharma was eternal and everything else was transitory; therefore the story of
Dharma was history par excellence. The ideal history was no longer t,he
Records (Yig-tshang) or the Line of Kings (Rgyal-rabs) but the Dharmakahini
(Chos-hbyung). The lives and thoughts of the saints and scholars, the doc-
trinal debates and the construction of temples and monasteries were now the
stuff for the historiographer. Even then a strong sense for historical sequence
and a high regard for firm chronology continued to characterize the chronicles
of Tibet. It cannot be denied that Tibetan historical wirtings contained
much useful data for history of the neighbouring countries. ~ Tariinatha's
'History of Buddhism' abounds with legends and myths but provides some
unimpeachable evidence where Indian literary sources are silent.

A measure of Sanskrit impact on Tibetan and Mongol languages is pro-

vided by the wide currency of loan-words from Sanskrit. While a most
faithful and yet perfect translation of the entire corpus of Sanskrit vocabulary
was achieved and even many proper names like Asoka and Vaisiili were ren-
dered into Tibetan, for academIC as well as sentimental grounds the Sanskrit
forms of certain words were preferred. Thus while Buddha, Dharma and
Sangha or Veda and Viiiiiina were always expressed in Tibetan forms, terms
like Guru and Muni or Sakyamuni and Pih:lini have been used in the original
form down to our times. Not that good Tibetan equivalents could not be
coined but that such coinage could not satisfactorily convey the full context
of the term. It will be interesting to give a few examples of Sanskrit loan-
words: Om, Mani, Padma, Viiranasi, Niilanda, Tak~asila. Some Sanskrit
words underwent sea-change in spelling and pronunciation. Five such loan-
words common to Tibetan and Mongol would be - Arya, Dharma, PaQ4ita,
Ratna. Vajra. In Mongol there was a greater zeal to have as many Sanskrit
words as possible for the Mongol translators rightly found that in the relay
of Dharma from Sanskrit to Mongol via Tibetan the original context would
be more obscure. A thirteenth century Mongol version of Lalitavistara
is conspicuously punctuated with Sanskrit words. ] cull here some as per
lranscription of Professor Nicholas Poppe with regular Sanskrit form in
brackets. Duvaja (Dhvaja), Lak!?a (Lak~maDa), Bodi (Bod hi), Dibangkara
(DipaIpkara), Erdini (Ratna), Arsi (R~i), Diyan (Dhyana), Esrua (I~vara),
Kadali (Kadali), Tusid (Tu!?ita), Manggal «Mangala), Sarati (Sarathi), Vinai
(Vinaya), Yasodari (Yasodharii), Sidi (Siddhi), Darm-acari (Dharmacari),
Kumuda (Kumuda). Vcir (Vajra), Maqaraja (Mahiiraja), Maiydari (Maitreya),
Sarvaartasidi (Sarvarthasiddhi), Akas (Akasa). Citiri (Citra), Usnir (U~Qi~a),
Arata Kalmi (AriiQa Kalama), Badir (Patra), Badmi (Padma), Samadi

23
(Samadhi), Maqamayi (Mahamaya), Siramani (Sramal)a), Vayiduri (VaiQurya).
Gunamati (Gu1)amati). Ratnagarci (Ratnagarbha), Ridi (Rddhi). It is not
necessary to extend the Jist of Sanskrit words in the Trans-Himalayas. I
need however record my most pleasant experience in the Baibls regions to
hear the Buriat Mongols uttering the words like Adisa (Atisa). Bandita
(Pa1)Qita) and Erteni (Ratna) without any efforts in their prayers in Mongol
and their talks in Russian.
If I tell a Lama (Mongol or Tibetan) that modern researches have proved
that there are substantial non-Aryan elements in Sanskrit vocabula!>.': and that
such words as Candana, Dal)4a, Pal)4ita and Bilva are probably of Dravidian
stock the Lama would retort that whatever is Sanskrit is Arya. If I argue
further I may offend the Trans-Himalayan believer be he a monk or a layman,
a scholar or a muleteer. I had on several occasions told Lamas that in modern
Indian opinion BudQha Sakyamuni would be traced to Tibeto-Mongoloid
stock and not Indo-Aryan. Far from pleasing the Lamas my statement was
a sort of blasphemy which pained them considerably. To a Northern Buddhist
all moral and spiritual values are from .Aryabhumi (Phags-yul in Tibetan)
and Buddha Sakya.muni could not but be Arya and the language of Prajfiiipiira-
mitii was indeed Arya or Sanskrit par excellence.
[Acknowledgement: My own on-the-spot observations as well as the
words of pioneers in the study of Trans-Himalayas provide data for this paper.
All necessary references will be found in V. Bhattacharya: Bho/aprakiisa
(Calcutta 1939); N. Dutt: Gilgit Manuscripts I (Srinagar 1939): N. Dutt
(ed) : Prajna (Gangtok 1961); and F. W. Thomas: "Brahmi Script in Central
Asian Sanskrit Manuscripts" in Asiatica Festsehrift Friedrich Weller (Leipzig
1954). In a recent paper entitled "Study of Sanskrit Grammar in Tibet"
(Bulletin of Tibetology, Vol. VB No.2) B. Ghosh narrates the history of
Sanskrit grammar in Tibet down to the nineteenth century. Regarding
Tibetan (and Mongol) sentiments on Buddha's nationality vide N. C. Sinha:
Greater India: Fact, Fiction & Fetish (Bhagalpur, 1971) and "Jndic elements
in Tibetan culture" in Man in India, Vol. 49, No. I. For an authoritative
statement of Tibetan sentiments about Tibet's indebtedness to Sanskrit vide .
the Dalai Lama's address to the ~dha Jayanti Symposium on November
29, 1956, in Shakabpa : Tibet (New Haven 1967), Appendix.]

24