Ramkrishna
Bhattacharya
North-South
Divide
The
story of Agastya, a north Indian sage, crossing the Vindhya hills and visiting south
India (never to return), is well known. It has given rise to a proverb, Agstya-yātrā in Bangla and maybe in
other north Indian languages. Like
all legends it is without date. So, it has been interpreted as an allegory of
the ingress of the north to the south, or, as a recent historian has said,
‘evidence of Aryan speakers’ movement
towards the south’ (Noboru Karashima, ‘Beginnigs
of south Indian history’ in: Noboru Karashima (ed.), A Concise History of South India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
2014, p.26). From about the third century BCE, religions that were born in north
India spread to the south. Interestingly enough, two heterodox religions,
Buddhism and Jainism were first to reach the Deccan and further south; the brahmanical
religion (Vedist) was to reach later. There are enough archaeological findings
to suggest so. The most conspicuous of the north Indian religions was Buddhism,
though traditionally Jain migration is said to have started as early as the
time of King Chandragupta Maurya (fourth century BCE).
The
reflection of both Buddhism and Jainism is found in old Tamil literature. There
are several long narrative poems that seek to establish the superiority of either
Buddhism or Jainism. The brahmanical religion did not find roots in the south
before the first century BCE. Consequently, in the Common Era we find specimens
of works belonging to these three religions, written not in Sanskrit, but in
Tamil.
Historians
of Tamil literature or of Indian literature as a whole (one such ambitious work
is Sisir Kumar Das’s A History of Indian
Literature 500-1399, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2005) seldom, if at all,
mention the fact that the polemics in the Manimēkalai (The Jewel Belt) ,
the Nilakēci (The Blue-Haired), and similar works
contain strong denunciation of several philosophical systems that came from the
north to the south. Tolerance is now projected as the hall mark of Indian
culture. Contrary to this notion, there seems to have been no love lost between
the Indian philosophical systems and Jainism as well as Buddhism in the south.
Apparently, Buddhism and Jainism were both imported in their northern garb.
Nevertheless, in the course of time, south India produced most eminent Buddhist
logicians, such as Diṅnāga (c 480-540 CE). The Jains too in their turn gave
birth to such theologians and philosophers as Kundakunda (first century BCE), who
earned all-India fame in the Common Era.
Tamil Literature: Its Antiquity and Variety
It
is to be kept in mind that ‘Tamil can claim one of the longest unbroken
literary tradition of any of the world’s living languages’ (Kamil Veith
Zvelebil, Tamil Literature (A History
of Indian Literature, Volume X Fascicule 1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974),
p.2). Nota Bene (Note Well): ‘the world’s living languages’, not just
India’s.
Jean
Filliozat, in his essay, ‘The Jaina narrative literature in South India and its
counterparts’ (Indologica Taurinensia,
Vol. XI, 1983, pp.97-107), provides an account of the rich narrative tradition
in Tamil. What is noteworthy is that, besides entertaining their audience with
interesting stories, the narratives are also highly tendentious: they indulge in undisguised propaganda in favour of
their respective religions and
philosophical systems. No counterpart of these narratives is to be found in
the north. Historians of Tamil literature have called them ‘epics’, although
they do not conform to either the Sanskrit criteria laid down in the books of poetics
and rhetoric nor judged by European standards. As Zvelebil has explained:
To express this terminologically, we may say that Tamil epic texts are not itihāsas, i.e. large narrative poems (large in character, in events, in setting, in effect) of the traditional heroic past, but rather longer or shorter mahākāvyas. . . . They are very different from each other and, strictly speaking, some of them should hardly be called epics in the narrower and more technical sense at all. But they are not as radically different from the accepted concept of the epic as, say, Dante’s Divine Comedy which has also been called an epic. (Zvelebil, 1974, p.16).
Philosophical Debates in the Epics
The
Maṇimēkalai [Ilanko Ādigāl and
Sattanar, Maṇimēkalai, trans. Prema
Nandakumar, Thanjavur: Tamil University, 1989] (± 550 CE) is what in Tamil
tradition is called an epic. So is the Nīlakēci
(± 950 CE). The first is the story of the wanderings of a Buddhist lady ascetic
called Maṇimēkalai. It is said to reflect ‘almost exactly the ideas of Diṅnāga,
the founder of Buddhist logic’ (Zvelebil, p.141). Among other things the epic Maṇimēkalai contains the first known
list of ṣaṭ-tarkī, six systems of
philosophy based on argument: Lokāyata, Buddhism, Sāṃkhya, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika,
and Mīmāṃsā (27.78-80). Instead of the āstika/nāstika
division of the philosophical systems (based on the brahmanical criterion of
adhering or not adhering to the Veda), here is a secular division of systems
founded, on the one hand, on argument and the other (presumably) on faith. Maṇimēkalai,
the heroine, enquires of the basic tenets of all philosophical systems – Sāṃkhya,
Mīmāṃsā, etc. – and finds all of them wanting in substance. In the debates,
Buddhism ultimately proves to be the victor over all Veda-abiding systems as
also Jainism and materialism with its two schools, Bhūtavāda and Lokāyata
(27.272-73). The Maṇimēkalai then,
besides its other merits, is the earliest work of doxography (collection of
views of ancient philosophical schools, now lost). The earliest doxographical
work in Sanskrit so far known to us is the Ṣaḍ-darśana-samuccaya
by a Jain savant, Haribhadra, which was composed in the eighth century CE, long
after the Maṇimēkalai. The Nīlakēci, too, is a doxographical work
of some importance, for it records several doctrinal aspects of southern
Buddhism, probably not to be found anywhere else. The inclusion of the Ᾱjīvikas
is also significant. No other heterodox view that was current in the Buddha’s
lifetime is mentioned. All of them seem to have become extinct in the Common
Era.
With the passage of time, religious
and philosophical systems that had their origin in north travelled to the
south. It has already been mentioned that Jainism perhaps came first with
Chandragupta Maurya (fourth century BCE), followed closely by Buddhism (third
century BCE); brahmanism with its emphasis on varṇāśrama-dharma was late
to arrive (first century BCE). The Ācārakkōvai
‘belongs to the brahmanical school and
is a digest of ideas from the dharmasastra’
(Y. Subbarayalu, ‘Sangam and Post-Sangam Literature’ in: Noboru Karashima
(ed.), A Concise History of South India,
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014, p.46). There is also a Jain work called
Silappatikāram, also spelt Cilappatikāram
(The Lay of the Anklet) (c.450 CE) by Ilangovadigal, supposed to be a Chera
prince. ‘Unlike the Silappatikāram [a
Jain kāvya], the Maṇimēkalai [a Budddhist kāvya] is quite outspoken in religious propagation
and underlines the fact that there were lots of polemical disputes and
discussions developing among adherence of rival religions’ (ibid., pp.46-47).
The
Jains, however, were not to be left behind: the author of the Nīlakēci (Neelakesi, edited, translated into English and published by A.
Chakravarti, Kumbhakonam, 1936), although Jain and hence tolerant by conviction,
spares no religion or philosophical system. In the last part of the work (Section
IV Chapters 1-10, pp.136-336), Nīlakēci, the Jain nun, deals with no fewer than
ten doctrines: 1. Dharma Urai (Tarumavurai,
exposition of the [Jaina] dharma), 2.
Kuṇḍalakēci-vāda (the doctrine of Kuṇṭalakēci,
i.e., the Buddhist doctrine preached by a lady Buddhist ascetic), 3. Arka-candra-vāda
(another Buddhist doctrine), 4. Mokkala-vāda (the doctrine of Mokkalaṉ, Pali Moggallāna, Sanskrit
Maudgalyāyana, refers to the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness, kṣaṇikavāda), 5. Buddha-vāda, 6.
Ājīvika-vāda (doctrine of the Ājīvikas, a heterodox sect, now extinct), 7. Sāṃkhya-vāda,
8. Vaiśeṣika-vāda, 9. Veda-vāda (Mīmāṃsā), and 10. Bhūta-vāda (Pūtavātam, materialism).
Referring
to (and apparently agreeing with) the view of Chakravarti), Filliozat writes:
It has been observed by the editor, A. Chakravarti, who contributes a detailed introduction to the work, that the major non-Jaina schools of philosophy: Śaṅkara, the Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava Saints, Nāyaṉmār and Āḻvār, are not mentioned in the work. Chakravarti thinks that this is because they did not yet exist as opponents of the Jaina doctrine, so that the polemical work Nīlakēci must belong to the period before their emergence. This may place the composition of the Nīlakēci in the 5th or 6th centuries’ (Filliozat p. 105).
Modern
scholars, however, prefer to date the work much later (tenth century CE. See
Zvelebil p.139).
Materialist Schools Expounded in the Epics
What
is most noteworthy is the mention of bhūtavāda
in both the epics. The Maṇimēkalai
refers to another materialist school called Lokāyata (27.272-73). Curiously
enough, the Nīlakēci does not mention
Lokāyata at all; it speaks of bhūtavāda
alone. [One caveat: Appaswami Chakravarti Nayanar in his translation of the Nīlakēci 4.10 often uses such expressions
as ‘the Lôkâyata teacher’ (p.322)or ‘the Chârvâka teacher’ (p.335 thrice, p.336
twice). But the text (checked and confirmed by A. Mahalingam) invariably refers
to Pūtavātam and Pūtavāti. Similarly, a
quotation from Shakespeare’s Hamlet
is inserted (p.336), which is obviously not in the original. Barring these,
Chakravarti’s translation, I am assured, is fairly faithful to the original.]
The
doctrinal aspect of materialism (of the pre-Cārvāka kind) is more or less the
same in both the epics: unlike the Cārvākas, earlier materialists in India
relied on one instrument of cognition only, namely, perception, while the
Cārvākas admitted the validity of inference up to a certain extent (in so far
as it was based on and/or was verifiable by perception). There are other
differences between the pre-Cārvākas and the Cārvākas, which can be discerned
from later evidence (for details see R. Bhattacharya, ‘Development of
Materialism in India: the Pre-Cārvākas and the Cārvākas’, Esercizi Filosofici 8, 2013, pp.1-12. (2013a). ISSN 1970-0164.
Link: http://www2.units.it/eserfilo/art813/bhattacharya813.pdf).
The
Maṇimēkalai contains the first ever
description of Lokāyata as a philosophical system, not a mere śāstra of disputation. In the Pali and
Sanskrit Buddhist tradition disputatio
is the only meaning of Lokāyata. The Maṇimēkalai
refers to no book of disputation but specifically mentions Lokāyata as a
separate school of materialism, different from bhūtavāda.
Predominance of Women
One
word more. Tamil epics have no heroes; they have heroines. There are no scenes
of bloody battles, but only battles of ideals, both religious and
philosophical. The heroines, whether Buddhist or Jain, are self-confident, vocal,
and always prepared to take part in a debate. They roam about the whole Tamil
land, disguised as male. Social historians have detected ‘indications of
matrifocal and matripedestal traditions in the sources, indicating different
cultural practices within the Tamil macroregion. The post-Sangam literature (c.
fourth-sixth centuries CE), marked by the didactic works and the epics, points
to influences from outside the region in the form of Jainism and Buddhism. . .
. However, the new ideas presented by the Sramanic traditions were eclipsed in
the early medieval period with the growth of the Brahmanical religion in the
region’ (R. Mahalakshmi, ‘Women in premodern south Indian society’ in:
Karashima (ed.), p.115).
[‘Matrifocal
societies are those that are centred on the mother as the pivotal figure in the
social organization, while matripedestal refers to the idolization and worship
of the mother.’ Ibid., p.115 n39.]
Appendix A
The bhūtavādī in the Maṇimēkalai is made to declare the
basic doctrine of the system he adheres to in the following terms (as
translated by Prema Nandakumar):
When aathi (?) flowers, sugar and the restAre mixed, wine is made. Life too appearsBy the mixing of elements, vanishesWhen they separate as sounds from a drum.Conscious elements produce life withinAnd unconscious one produces the bodyEach appearing through their elements.This is the truth. Words different from thisAnd other facts are from Materialists [Lokāyatas].Sense perception is valid. InferenceIs false. This birth and its effect concludeNow. Talk of other birth is falsity. (27.265-76, p. 154)
The
words of the bhūtavādī have been
paraphrased by a late medieval commentator in the following way:
When
certain flowers and jaggery are boiled together, liquor is born which produced
intoxication. Just as when elements combine, consciousness arises.
Consciousness dissolves with the dissolutions of the elements composing them
like the disintegration of sound. Elements combine to produce living Bhūtas and from them other living Bhūtas will be born. Life and
consciousness are synonymous. From non-living Bhūtas consisting of two or more elements rise non-living Bhūtas of the same type. Lokāyata is a
variant of this system that agrees in fundamental with this system. Observation
is the method by knowledge is obtained. Inferential thinking is illusion. This
worldly life is real. Its effect is experienced in this life only. The theory
that we enjoy the fruits of our action in our next birth or in another world is
false. (Quoted and translated by N. Vanamamalai)
Appendix B
There
are at least two recent translations of the Maṇimēkalai
in English, one in prose and other in
verse:
Maṇimēkalai
(The Dancer with the Magic Bowl), trans.
Alain Danielou with the collaboration of T.V. Gopala Iyer, New Delhi: Penguin
Books, 1993.
Maṇimēkalai,
trans. Prema Nandakumar, Thanjavur: Tamil University, 1989.
There
is also an abridged version of the epic:
Lakshmi
Holmstörm, Manimekalai/Silappattikasam,
Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1996.
No
other edition or translation of the Nīlakēci
excepting the ones by A.Chakravarti is available. The 1936 edition has ben
reprinted several times. Both the text and the translation are available on the
net.
The
following articles are of interest:
Miyamoto
Jō, Lōkāyata in Tamil, Journal of Indian
and Buddhist Studies, Vol. 55, No.3, March 2007, pp.1131-1135.
G.
Suryanaryana Sastri, The Manimekalai Account of the Sankhya, Journal of Indian History 8 (1929)
pp.322-327.
G.
Suryanaryana Sastri, Buddhist Logic in Manimekalai, Journal of Indian History 9 (1930) part iii.
N.
Vanamamalai, Materialist Thought in Early Tamil Literature, Social Scientist, Vol.2 No.4 (November 1973), pp.25-41, also available
on the net (JSPOR).
Other
sources have been mentioned in the text of the lecture within parentheses.
Acknowledgements
Chayan Samaddar, Prabir Gangopadhyay, Sunish Kumar Deb. The usual disclaimers
apply.
Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught English at the University Calcutta
0 comments:
Post a Comment