Reviews
By Satkari Mookherjree, U. N. Ghoshal, Batakrishna Ghosh, Sri Ram Sharma, R. N. Sarkar
Summary
The book *Two Sanskrit-Chinese Lexicons* (1937) by Prabodh Chandra Bagchi examines two Sanskrit-Chinese lexicons from around 1000 A.D.: *Fan-yu-tsa-ming* (attributed to the Kuchean Li-yen) and *Fan-yu-ts'ien-tseu-wen* (traditionally linked to the Chinese traveler I-tsing, though Bagchi expresses skepticism). Both lexicons contain Sanskrit loanwords and dāpabbramia (likely a typographical error or specialized term), reflecting Sanskrit's influence in Central Asia by the 7th-8th centuries. Examples include *kalama* ("cloth") and *kakali* ("paper"), suggesting Sanskrit was a living language in Kucha. Bagchi argues that Li-yen’s lexicon likely reflects Kuchean influence, though he acknowledges uncertainties due to limited phonological studies of Kuchean and Tokharian languages. He critiques earlier scholarship, such as Pelliot’s theories on Tokharian, and highlights parallels with Prakrit phonology. Despite being completed in 1928, Bagchi’s work remains relevant, anticipating later research on Tokharian. The text emphasizes the linguistic and historical significance of the lexicons for understanding Sanskrit’s spread and adaptation in ancient Central Asia. In *Philosophy of Hindu Sadhana*, Nalini Kanta Brahma explores Hindu spiritual practices (*sadhana*) as scientific disciplines aimed at liberation. He categorizes *sadhana* into Karma (action), Jnana (knowledge), and Bhakti (devotion), analyzing their philosophical foundations and practical rituals. Brahma argues that Hindu spirituality prioritizes
Conclusion
This study offers critical insights into the linguistic and cultural dynamics of Sanskrit in eighth-century Central Asia, challenging assumptions about the language's geographic and phonetic boundaries. By analyzing two Sanskrit-Chinese lexicons, it highlights the vitality of Sanskrit as a living language in Kuchean regions, despite unresolved debates about Kuchean-Tokharian linguistic connections. The work anticipates later research on Tokharian phonology and demonstrates the interdisciplinary value of combining Sinological and Sanskrit scholarship. Dr. Bagchi's meticulous analysis enriches historical linguistics, emphasizing the role of loanwords and phonetic adaptations in tracing cross-cultural linguistic exchanges. The findings underscore the importance of re-evaluating traditional hypotheses about Sanskrit's regional usage and its interaction with local dialects, contributing significantly to the understanding of ancient Central Asian linguistic landscapes.