This is a reproduction of the second part of the review of TBFS done by Shrinivas Tilak for the magazine Hindu Vishva
Refutation of Sheldon
Pollock on Sanskrit and sanskriti by Rajiv Malhotra
Shrinivas Tilak*
In my review of The Battle For Sanskrit (HarperCollins
2015) in Hindu Vishva (January-March 2016), I discussed author Rajiv
Malhotra’s fair and faithful presentation and rigorous examination (Purva
paksha) of Professor Sheldon Pollock’s allegations that Sanskrit is dead,
politically motivated, and socially oppressive. In this follow up article I
present Rajiv Malhotra’s (hereafter RM) spirited and energetic refutation (Uttara
paksha) of Professor Pollock (hereafter Pollock) in the form of nirnayas
(considered verdicts or decisions) delivered on points of order pertaining to
Sanskrit and sanskriti raised in Pollock’s various writings: Nirnaya on Sanskrit
and Prakrit, Nirnaya on Shruti,
Nirnaya on Kavya and Shastra, Nirnaya on Sanskrit and Sanskriti, Nirnaya on
American Orientalism.
Nirnaya
on Sanskrit and Prakrit
Agreeing with Pollock
that Vedic
Sanskrit was used mainly for ritual purposes, RM explains in his The Battle
For Sanskrit (hereafter TBFS) that a simplified form of Sanskrit nevertheless
served as a basis for languages derived from Prakrit and spoken by ordinary
people. Sanskrit has always functioned as
a meta-language for these languages (RM rejects Pollock’s use of ‘vernaculars’
for languages derived from Prakrit) facilitating a bi-directional flow between
the two. This interaction has remained a continued source of decentralized and
open architecture encompassing unity and diversity in India. Sanskrit has also acted
as the template of sanskriti with its
various angas (limbs)--architecture, dance, theatre, sculpture, poetry,
etc. Rejecting them in favor of modern, westernized cultural practices as demanded
by Pollock would alienate Hindus/Indians from their traditional roots. Furthermore,
Sanskrit has made available its rich vocabulary for engaging in discourse in
sciences and in other fields that are meaningful and necessary in everyday life
activities (natural sciences, mathematics, linguistics, medicine, ethics, and political
thought). RM laments that Pollock fails to acknowledge this power and potential
of Sanskrit. Merchants and monks who travelled long distances for trade and commerce were
able to engage in conversations, debates, and lectures with locals spreading in
the process Sanskrit (and often some Prakrit-derived languages) across India
and beyond. Since Vedic metaphysics held a deeper place in the lives of people it
was replicated in different places with local geographies and kingdoms
substituted in place of those mentioned in such source texts as the Ramayana.
Nirnaya on Shruti
RM vigorously contests
Pollock’s suggestion that mantras, being in some cases meaningless in the
conventional sense, could be discarded. RM argues that such action would amount
to rejecting the important place the concept of vac has in Hindu
cosmology. Such a step would entail loss of a key adhyatmika (inner
science of self) resource. Chanting of mantras has also been an integral part
in the performance of yajna, which plays a significant role in social
cohesion. Discarding the practice of chanting mantras in yajna or in
meditation as demanded by Pollock would result in loss of the integrative power
of traditional rituals of Hindus rendering them more intellectually dependent
on (and subservient to) the West.
RM further clarifies that
chanting of mantras from the Shrutis, as part of meditative practices,
serves a useful purpose for the sound vibrations (spanda or spandana)
that are produced are beyond (or above) the limited literal or conceptual
meanings Pollock associates with them. Spanda is the dynamic aspect of shakti,
the energy of Shiva, the supreme Self. In Hinduism spanda is not a
fantasy or a merely philosophical concept, it can be experienced and felt
directly as expounded in the Spanda Karikas, a classic text of Kashmir
Shaivism, from the 10th century CE attributed to Vasugupta.
Nirnaya on Kavya and
Shastra
While Pollock deliberately breaks shastras from kavya in
his deliberations, RM takes them together following the traditional convention.
While acknowledging that the kavya and shastra are two distinct
types of works, RM insists that this distinction is only a heuristic device and
not a clear-cut or absolute boundary as posited by Pollock. Indeed, many kavyas
demonstrate keen awareness of knowledge of various types from shastras.
Conversely, shastras are often expressed in a poetic format and often display
an excellent literary quality. Indeed, Sanskrit spread through its cultural
applications via such shastras as ayurveda, astrology, philosophy,
mathematics, and performing arts. Pollock
selectively quotes from one chapter of Kalidasa’s Shakuntala as an
example of the politicization of Sanskrit kavya. Had he added the traditional
lens to his gaze, observes RM, Pollock would have recognized that Hindus
appreciate such works for their aesthetics independently of (or in addition to)
any political motive or framework. Pollock talks about Bilhana’s Vikramankadevacarita,
in the eleventh century, as another example of political kavya. But he
does not mention Bilhana’s Caurapancashika (The Love Thief), which is
appreciated for its romantic aesthetic. One should also consider the
reproduction of Ramayana in Tamil (twelfth century, by Kamban) and in Avadhi
(sixteenth century, by Tulsidas) as non-political kavyas expressive of bhakti
(TBFS endnote # 263).
Nirnaya on Sanskrit
and Sanskriti
RM is particularly keen
to controvert Pollock and company’s sinister attempts to break Sanskrit away from
sanskriti. Sanskrit is better studied, he argues, using traditional
methods and models that are compatible with its function both as a language of
rituals and sacred discourses as well as worldly matters. He denies Pollock’s charge that
traditional Sanskrit scholars are averse
to the critical study of Sanskrit or to using tools of philology, cognitive
science and history developed for this purpose.
People of India or
Southeast Asia did not approach Sanskrit exclusively through the lens of
politics; rather, they saw it in the context of cultural practices and
spiritual realization. This is in conformity with ongoing Indic ethos—an
interconnected network of Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma. As to Pollock’s
charge that women in India are/were denied access to Sanskrit; the fact is that
women have internalized Sanskrit, and for many of them, the intimacy with it is
based on oral culture rather than written materials. While Pollock et al think
of Sanskrit as a 'religious' language, it is fascinating to find out that
Indian women have preserved the oral and worldly dimension of Sanskrit to this
day.
In Chapter seven of TBFS
(‘The Web of Sanskriti as a Potential Alternative Hypothesis’) RM presents the
‘web of sanskriti’ as an alternative approach to the notion of Sanskrit
cosmopolis put forth by Pollock. RM
demonstrates how grass-roots spirituality can play a meaningful role in the
spread of languages and culture. In Chapter ten (‘The Re-colonization of Indian
Minds’) RM suggests ways of correcting the distorted perceptions of Sanskrit, sanskriti,
and dharma that have spread beyond academia into media, industry leadership,
government, and even among many traditional centers of Sanskrit learning (pithas)
in contemporary India.
RM foils Pollock’s
attempt to divide and set the people of India against each other through agency
of the caste system. RM points out that select elements of Vedic metaphysics,
the web of sanskriti, and the
Sanskrit language could be replicated in different places because they enjoyed
a deep place of respect in the hearts and lives of local populations. Sanskrit
and its texts expressed the fabric of cosmic reality and Indians (kings,
brahmins, merchants, or farmers) were naturally drawn and inspired to explore,
discover, share, and celebrate the manifestation of this reality in their
personal and social lives.
Nirnaya on American Orientalism
Pollock’s call to ‘liberation philology’ (designed on the lines of a
movement called ‘liberation theology’ that challenged Roman Catholic collusion
with oppression in the nineteen-sixties and seventies) for secularizing
Sanskrit is an important plank of American orientalism. RM strenuously objects
to this allusion because it obscures a significant difference between ‘liberation
philology’ and liberation theology, which was a movement internal to Christianity and fully accepting of
its fundamental principles. Indeed, this latter was largely a call for a return to these principles. However,
Pollock rejects the Vedic roots of the Sanskrit tradition altogether and
regards them as no more than relics of primitive thinking or attempts to blind
people to their oppression. Furthermore, his liberation philology seriously
misrepresents the texts it purports to illuminate, and distorts both the
evidence and the function of these texts in the lives of real people, both in
the past and the present.
As an alternative to Pollock’s ‘liberation philology,’ RM proposes what
he calls a ‘sacred philology,’ [I
would prefer to call it ‘sadhana philology’] a philology rooted in the
conviction that Sanskrit cannot be divorced from its matrix in the Vedas and
Upanishads or from its orientation towards the transcendent realm. RM’s
proposed alternative is quite different from the stance of the Western, secular
academy that Pollock represents because sacred philology would involve a respect
for and a practice of tapasya and meditation that constitutes the basis
of all four dharmic pathways to liberation originating in India (i.e. Buddhism,
Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism) (TBFS 282-283).
After a fair and faithful depiction and scrutiny of Professor Pollock’s
views on Sanskrit, i.e. Purva paksha without bias (puravgraha or pakshapata)
and their refutation (Uttara paksha) Rajiv Malhotra provides his own well
thought out and crafted plan to preserve and promote Sanskrit and sanskriti (to
be discussed in a subsequent issue of Hindu Vishva).
* Shrinivas Tilak (Ph.D. History of
Religions, McGill University, Montreal, Canada) is author of The Myth of
Sarvodaya: A study in Vinoba’s concept (New Delhi: Breakthrough Communications
1984); Religion and Aging in the Indian Tradition (Albany, N. Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1989); Understanding karma in light of Paul
Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology and hermeneutics (Charleston, SC: BookSurge,
revised, paperback edition, 2007); and Reawakening to a secular Hindu nation:
M. S. Golwalkar’s vision of a Dharmasāpekşa Hindurāşţra (Charleston, SC:
BookSurge, 2008). Contact <shrinivas.tilak@gmail.com>
No comments:
Post a Comment