Since the label “Sanskrit philosophy” is being used regularly by some of my colleagues who work on philosophy in the Indian subcontinent, I thought I’d write a post on why I don’t use the term and why I think it isn’t a good replacement for “Indian Philosophy” or “South Asian Philosophy.”

What should a label “X philosophy” do? In my view, it should, ideally:

1. Demarcate the right set of texts with as little vagueness as possible
2. Clearly communicate in virtue of what that set of texts is X philosophy
3. Not result in unwanted connotations.

The phrase “Sanskrit philosophy,” as I understand its expansive sense, is meant to refer to Sanskritic philosophy, in the sense of philosophy in what Sheldon Pollock calls the “Sanskrit Cosmopolis.” Note that the Sanskrit cosmopolis is a theoretical posit, a transregional cultural structure that spanned roughly a thousand years, in which Sanskrit was the dominant language, especially for political purposes. In an expansive sense, “Sanskrit philosophy” refers to philosophy done within this cultural structure, which spans multiple places and times. This includes philosophy written in Pāli, Prakrit, Tamil, and other South Asian languages, which means one might truly say “The Visuddhimagga, written in Pāli, is a work of Sanskrit philosophy” or “The Tirukkuṟaḷ, written in Tamil, is a work of Sanskrit philosophy.”

Let’s consider some of the goals for a label:

Does “Sanskrit philosophy” demarcate the right set of texts with as little vagueness as possible?

Well, one worry is that hitching “Sanskrit philosophy” to Pollock’s theorizing sets rough time limits of the fourth through the fourteenth centuries BCE for the cosmopolis. That means that “Sanskrit philosophy” would not apply to earlier Sanskrit texts like the Upaniṣads unless the term is stretched to mean philosophy done within the Sanskrit cosmopolis and in influential texts prior to its arising. And it excludes anything beyond the fourteenth century, which “Indian philosophy” or “South Asian philosophy” does not.

Perhaps we can remove Pollock’s specific theory from the mix, and simply mean “philosophy in a cosmopolis in which Sanskrit was the dominant language of culture and everyone had to come to terms with it”, and so stretching backwards. Then it seems “Sanskrit philosophy” does not have the same boundaries as “Indian philosophy,” since twentieth-century philosopher K. C. Bhattacharyya was not writing in a period of Sanskrit dominance. But he was doing Indian philosophy (and, arguably, Sanskritic philosophy, given his indebtness to, and engagement with, Vedānta). Though, perhaps that is what the label is meant to pick out: premodern philosophy in a Sanskrit-dominant world?

My second worry is the probably the biggest for me:

Does “Sanskrit philosophy” clearly communicate in virtue of what that set of texts is Sanskrit philosophy?

The ordinary meaning of “Sanskrit” is a language and usually, we use “X philosophy,” where “X” is a noun for a language, to refer to philosophies written in that language or by people in its related region(s). So, “Greek philosophy” can mean philosophy written in Greek or philosophy written by Greek people. “Sanskrit,” like “Greek,” can be used as an adjective, but as an adjective, it means “of, belonging to, or written in Sanskrit” (per the OED). In contrast, “Greek” as an adjective means “or pertaining to Greece or its people (OED). The more analogous term to the adjective “Greek” would be “Sanskritic,” which can mean “related or deriving from Sanskrit.”

I’ll add that I have yet to encounter a philosopher who doesn’t first understand “Sanskrit philosophy” as meaning philosophy written in Sanskrit. Even some people working in Indian philosophy have asked me what the term means when they first encounter it.

So, I think, “Sanskrit philosophy” is not a great way to communicate that texts like the Tamil Tirukkuṟaḷ are part of a cultural formation that privileged Sanskrit even as other linguistic modes were available. To my ear, “The Tirukkuṟaḷ, written in Tamil, is a work of Sanskritic philosophy” works better. (Then we can discuss just how Sanskritic, which is a major area of investigation.)

Does “Sanskrit philosophy” avoid unwanted connotations?

Finally, I’ll note that, as with all labels for traditions, there are issues of connotations (“Arabic” and “Islamic” are two terms about which there is similar debate when used for philosophical traditions). In relation to “Indian” and “Sanskrit,” there are difficult political issues for both terms, as some ahistorical, policitized narratives put Sanskrit-language texts at the center of premodern India and at the core of a constructed Hindu unity.

Names matter, and I don’t want to suggest that “Indian philosophy” doesn’t have baggage, now being closely associated with the nation-state of India. But premodern Indian philosophy happened in what is today Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and beyond. Given this, “South Asian philosophy” is another option, one which suggests more accurate geographical boundaries.

Now, since I personally only work on Sanskrit-language sources, “Sanskrit philosophy” would not be inapt for what I do. But given current political winds and the historical marginalization of other linguistic groups, I prefer to avoid that phrase as a metonym for the philosophy done in the subcontinent. So, I’ll say—knowing that all labels have issues—I work on “Sanskrit-language philosophy,” “Indian philosophy,” or “South Asian philosophy,” but I avoid “Sanskrit philosophy.”

In sum, I think (1) “Sanskritic philosophy” is better than “Sanskrit philosophy” if one wishes to get at the idea of a Sanskrit cosmopolis, largely because “Sanskrit” does not have an adjectival meaning parallel to “Greek” or “Chinese,” and (2) all things considered, “South Asian” or “Indian” are preferable.