Current studies of Sanskrit knowledge systems in the west suffer from serious

methodological handicaps despite being grounded in an essentially interdisciplinary

approach. This is because the western Indologists do not take into consideration the
idiosyncrasies of the social, cultural and intellectual milieu against the background of
which the Sanskrit texts were written; in other words, they lose sight of the mentalité that
acted as the driving force behind such intellectual outputs. Rather, they injudiciously
apply the philological and historical methodologies to all kinds of texts assuming that
these methodologies have universal application. A necessarily uncritical Euro-American
centric view of scholarship motivated by neo-colonial designs forms the bedrock of such
an approach. In the same vein, western Indologists do not feel the need for engaging into
dispassionate and serious intellectual dialogues with traditional Sanskrit scholars of
India, whom them contemptuously refer to and dismiss as “paṇḍita”-s. They also fail to
note the fact (pointed out decades ago by Prof. Bimal Krishna Matilal) that classical
Sanskrit intellectual enterprises were necessarily interdisciplinary as suggested by the
word ‘śāstra’ which was used as an umbrella term for all systems and branches of
knowledge, the rise of which has been witnessed by history. Nevertheless, the limited but
rewarding merits of judicious applications of such approaches to the study of Sanskrit
language texts cannot be denied. For, the philological method of text criticism especially
helps discover the variegated modes of innovation and creation within the precincts of
canonical thought. Such innovations allowed their authors to be traditional without being
dogmatic. Such discoveries bring to limelight the unique contributions made by each
author of every tradition. Hence the judicious application of such approaches to ancient
Sanskrit texts consistent with the traditional approach is not something which should be
summarily rejected, but liberally adapted. A wider form of this philological approach was
also not unknown to the ancients, for when commentators like Mallinātha say “na
amūlaṃ likhyate kiñcin na kiñcid anapekṣitam” (I am not writing anything baseless, nor
something which is unrequired), they are only hinting at some form of this methodology.
One way of judiciously adapting this methodology, for example, is to get rid of
mechanical and fixed understanding of Sanskrit words, sentences, constructions, and
recognising the fact that every Sanskrit is independent with regard to his style, etc. Use of
the same word by the same author in the same work in different senses must not be
looked upon as pointers to his “sloppiness”. For such notions of “sloppiness” are
ultimately western socio-intellectual constructs and hence not objective and universal
and thus can have encroaching impacts on the uninterrupted flow of human creativity.
Similarly, researches carried out in mainstream universities in India generally suffer from
a lack of firm understanding of the methodological issues. This is because, despite
focusing on primary Sanskrit texts, average Indian research scholars, generally speaking,
do not care to read secondary interpretive literature of such texts. The merits of reading
such secondary literature cannot be overemphasized, for secondary literature provides us
with perspectives that ultimately finetune our understanding of texts and open up new
intellectual vistas.
All this necessitates the need for conducting such researches as would accommodate the
contemporary Western research methods into the general framework of traditional Indian
critical approach. In other words, such judiciously designed western lenses can only
sharpen our eastern vision. This can be best realized by establishing a research institute
which would facilitate the undertaking of researches along these lines and publish the
outcomes of such researches. As regards the constitution of this research institute, it
would be western in terms of academic rigour and discipline, but Indian in spirit. It would
be western in look but Indian in outlook. It will, just like the South Asian Studies
departments of western universities, also offer courses in foreign languages like English,
German and French, so as to enable the researchers of this institute to be equipped with
the necessary linguistic tools to address the shortcomings of western Indological
researches published mostly in the aforementioned languages. In the same vein, scholars
of a dedicated section of this institute would be working on English and Indian language
translations of key Indological research works of Asian and Western scholars of Indology
published in German, French and Italian languages in the west. A publication unit of this
research institute would publish the outcomes of the various intellectual activities to be
carried out under the aegis of this institute in the form of edited volumes, monographs
and research articles in a triannual peer-reviewed research journal.
The said Indological research institute is proposed to be named after Anantaśrī Svāmī
Keśavānanda Bhāratī Mahāsannidhāna and dedicated to his holy memory. As indicated
earlier, the focus of this research institute would be interdisciplinary research in Sanskrit
knowledge systems. However, in recognition of the totalizing and encompassing impact
of Advaita Vedānta, special researches on the hitherto unstudied and understudied
aspects and areas of Advaita Vedānta philosophy (e.g., the works of Anantaśrī
Toṭakācārya, how the study of his works may lead to the discovery of a new prasthāna or
sub-branch of Advaita Vedānta, the study of Bhagavtpāda Jagadguru Śrī Śāṅkarācārya’s
works as mines of information on early Āyurveda, etc.) would be undertaken and
encouraged.