Why Sanskrit?

Agamadambara – A Critique of the Elite

Ashutosh Dayal Mathur
Associate Professor
St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.

This play can also be placed in the series which culminated in Kshemendra, of texts which are highly critical of the social, political and intellectual elite. What Kshemendra wrote about various social and professional gropus – officials, scholars, commoners and ministers and the like in 11th century, our author did it in the 9th in the form of a drama.
He has ridiculed the Bauddhas as arrogant and vain hair splitters. He is very harsh on the Jainas, particularly the digambara sect And has accused them indulging in most vicious of vices. He has depicted two kinds of brahmans - one represented by the rithwik in act IV who only want to decimate other religious sects so that they can capture the entire market for religious rituals and made a good killing. The second kind of Brahmanas are the ones represented by the protagonist who indulge in arrogant intellectual pursuits. They seem to be power hungry and want complete annihilation of all rival schools of thought and beliefs. Their intellectual rigour and so called scholarship helps them to acquire state patronage and positions of power.

Yet, once into the power structures they struggle to maintain their position even at the cost of compromising with their scholarship which catapults them to those positions. Once they become bureaucrats they fall in line, All their commitment to their philosophy, beliefs and practices is diluted.

This could be Jayanta's critique of the scholar turned bureaucrat. This can also be seen as his rejection of the very method of assessing a person’s competence to hold a position in the government.

He seems to suggest that government and administration require special skills and not everybody who is a good darshnika or is good at any other subject area, can become a good administrator. Then comes the attack on politics which he shows is not about intellectual integrity but about how to preserve and maintain power through manipulation and compromise.

Our protagonist learned it the hard way. Running a government and reigning in wild practises and beliefs.

Agamadambara – Purists and Polluters

Ashutosh Dayal Mathur
Associate Professor
St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.

This four act play from the pen of a leading philosopher of his times, seems to be an indictment of the very idea of pure philosophy. The author finds himself in the midst of very polluted beliefs and practices. He, in the first three acts, fights vigorous battles against heretic schools of philosophy, through a young Vedic scholar called Sankarshana. The young protagonist takes delight in defeating the Buddhists, the Jainas and the Charvakas in philosophical debates. As a young Mimamsaka, he deems it his duty to demolish all non Vedic schools and communities.

In the fourth act however, he faces an acute dilemma. He has become a state official and has been tasked to identify non Vedic communities by the King. He personally believes that the followers of Shaiva and Pancharatra agamas are anti Vedic and should be kept away from the society. However, he finds himself in a difficult situation because the King himself is a Shaiva !!

In the prelude to the 4th act one brahmana priest and a brahmana teacher discuss the problems posed by the Pashupatas, the Pancharatras and other heretic sects. The priest laments that he had actually imagined that all these sects would be discredited and the entire world would become the domain of the Vedic brahmanas who would be able to milch the word to their exclusive advantage. The teacher says he has no hopes from Sankarshan because as a Kings official he will merely echo the Kings words and will not be able to speak the truth to the King.

Then we are told that Sankarshan has invited several scholars belonging to various philosophical schools to hold a debate about the validity of the beliefs and practices of the Pancharataras and the Pashupatas. This debate becomes entirely one sided as instead of allowing rival parties to present their arguments, the judge, a great logician himself, after giving very intricate arguments proceeds to pronounce the judgement in favour of the Pancharatras and the Pashupatas. We are also told that the judge had been invited by the principal Queen to be the arbitrator in the dispute.
It is very intriguing to see this twist in this story. The author of this play is a great Kashmiri logician, naiyayika of around ninth century. As a Naiyayika, in the first three acts, he indulges in very sharp polemic against the Buddhists, the Jainas and the Charvakas. And yet he fails to put up a fight against the Pancharatras and the Pashupatas. This can be contrasted with a very strong position taken by Shankaracharya against these two schools in his commentary on the Brahma sutras.

Why has the author lost his voice against these two schools? Going by the story one might infer that he did not wish to offend the powers that be in his own place and time. There are many other takeaways from this end to the story.

1. The author wishes to suggest that all theories, beliefs and practises have to be accepted as fait accompli and on the very practical and pragmatic grounds that people believe in them. No argument and and no debate can make people budge from their beliefs.

2. Secondly, it is more difficult to take a position which goes against the declared policy of the state.

3. Thirdly that all intellectual debates about philosophy can be manipulated and deliberately taken to a predetermined conclusion.

4. fourthly that all intellectual gimmickry is aimed at striking deals for safeguarding ones own position and status.
The last bit of the interaction between an embarrassed Samkarshana and one of the contestants brings out the helplessness of the purists in stopping the polluters from gaining ascendance in the society.

Even after losing his position on the two heretic sects, Sankarshana advises the contestant to keep away the polluters from his ashrama. The contestant openly admits his inability and put the onus back on Sankarshan and says that it is for the state to take any harsh action against the polluters.

That is like putting the cart before the horse because when the state itself is a highly compromised institution why would it act at all? And who will dare to act against the state because the King himself patronises a polluted religion!!!!

We can now connect this story with the Prastavana of the play where the sutradhara expresses his extreme indignation at having to live a false life imposed upon him by his diverse roles in various dramas. His friend there remarks that everybody in the world is living this kind of a dual life being or trying to be what he is not.

The author seems to suggest that great scholars belonging to various schools of philosophy and leaders of various sects are all pretentious persons holding false identities simply for the sake of earning a living. The tall talk they indulge in, the highly complex and convoluted arguments they give to defend their own positions and all the shastras they preach are nothing but means of earning power, wealth and privilege.

Coming from the pen of a great philosopher this conclusion itself is very shocking. It appears that in a moment of truth, the author realised the futility of intellectual and philosophical hairsplitting. Royals or commoners they do what they do and no agamas and no shastras can make them see reason. From an excited argumentative theoretician, he seems to have mellowed and rather become cynical.

Agamadambara
Lost Identity : An Actor’s Dilemma

Ashutosh Dayal Mathur
Associate Professor
St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.

Jayanta Bhatta, a great naiyayika from Ninth century Kashmir has composed a play called Agamadambara - the farce of knowledge or shastra.

Its prologue is very pertinent and powerful where the sutradhara, who is a professional actor, expresses his extreme disgust with his profession.

The play begins with a critique of drama itself particularly of commercial theatre, of actors and others associated with production of a play who all do it for money. Theatre for them is not an act of love or an act of art but a mere means of livelihood.

The author is critical of commercial theatre but expresses appreciation for shastric Theatre which due to its very rigorous regime is real serious discipline. On the other hand commercial Theatre is motivated only by profit motive. In this kind of Theatre purity of drama becomes a casualty and peoples cheap thrills become the test of success.

The sutradara also finds fault with commercial Theatre For flouting all social norms and conventions. The suggestion seems to be that drama should not only confirm to The discipline of dramaturgy but also confirm to social norms and conventions. However professional actors don't bother about either. They pander to the sickly demands and tastes of the patrons and promoters.

The sutradhara is so disgusted with commercial Theatre that he wants to give up his profession and become a bhikshu.
His friend tries to dissuade him from quitting. The friend tries to explore why the sutradhar is feeling so disgusted. In this process he throws up two reasons why actors can get very disillusioned and disenchanted with their work. It could be because of some harsh criticism of their work by people (janapavada) or due to the fear of action by the state (rajabhaya).

Janapavada has been elaborated in verse 5 as people’s wrath. People can get angry with a production if it nit upto their expectations or it supposedly hurts their sentiments. This is quite often seen even today with films and theatrical productions. This also happened to the first drama ever produced by Bharata Muni.

The Natya shastra has this story of how the demons we’re up in arms against his show because they felt they had been projected in bad light. They got so incensed that they decided not to allow any drama to ever be presented. They turned against the very art of theatre.

Fear of the state is not elaborated but it might be presumed that state often curbs artistic freedoms on various grounds and artists are often subjected to very harsh action.

However the sutradara is not bothered about either.
His worry Is more philosophical. He is quite unhappy with constantly being what he is not. He has to act like Kings and commoners, like gods and demons and even like animals. This switching from one role to the other makes him confused about his own true identity. He gets lost negotiating between various conflicting identities.

Hence he wants to know the real truth about life and existence. This is the agony of an actor who has to constantly live a false life under a false identity. He has to under go other peoples joys and sufferings and in the process he gets disconnected with himself and his own feelings and emotions.
Therefore the actor wants to free himself from all false identities and seek to rediscover himself, to be with himself and be himself.
However the irony of his yearning is beautifully brought out by the author. In order to avoid imposing conflicting identities upon himself the actor wants to impose another false identity of a bhikshu upon himself! He is a much married man with the family and wants to look for his identity outside of himself. His friend amply warns him against becoming a bhikshu.

Through his friend the author conveys a very startling truth about life itself. Everyone he says is living a false life. Jayanta points out that even non actors are constantly trying to project an image of themselves, trying to be what they actually are not, constantly imposing false identities upon themselves and therefore constantly feeling burdened and miserable living under assumed identities.
The actor is not convinced and at the end of the prologue he reaffirms his resolve to join a close by vihara where he thinks he will receive instruction in the path to final liberation.

विश्वामित्र नदी संवाद ऋग्वेद ३.३३.
१०.०२.२०२१

विपाशा (ब्यास) नदी रोहतांग पास के पास व्यास ताल से निकल कर हिमाचल – पंजाब की धरती को जीवन देती है। सतलुज नदी तिब्बत से निकलकर पंजाब तक आती है। ब्यास ४७० कि मी बहकर फिरोजपुर में हरिके पट्टन के पास ब्यास सतलुज में मिल जाती है । संभवतः वेद के ॠषि ने उसी स्थल पर दोनों के प्रबल प्रवाह को देखकर इस सूक्त की रचना की है॥

ऋग्वेद के तीसरे मण्डल के तेतीसवें सूक्त में विश्वामित्र तथा विपाशा व शुतुद्री – इन दो नदियों के मध्य संवाद है। दोनों नदियों के संगम का पाट बहुत चौडा है। ऋषि कुशिक और उसके यजमान भरत नदी पार जाना चाहते हैं
ॠषि नदियों से प्रार्थना करता है कि वे मुहूर्त भर रुक जायें ताकि वे सब नदी पार जा सकें
मन्त्र ५ – रमध्वं मे वचसे सोम्याय ॠतावरीरुपमुहूर्तमेवैः

नदियाँ कहती हैं – हमें इन्द्र ने स्वच्छन्द बहने वाली बनाया है। हम रुक नहीं सकतीं॥ हम उसकी आज्ञा से चलती हैं –
मन्त्र – ६ इन्द्रो अस्माँ अरदद् वज्रबाहुः ..... वयं प्रसवे यामः....

ॠषि पुनः निवेदन करता है – हम बहुत दूर से रथों में आए हैं। हमें जाने दो। मैं इन्द्र के कर्म की स्तुति करता हूँ –
मन्त्र – ७ – प्रवाच्यं शश्वधा वीर्यं तदिन्द्रस्य....

अतः ऋषि कहता है – तुम कुछ निम्न हो जाओ
मन्त्र ९ – नि षू नमध्वम्

जिससे तुम्हारी लहरें रथों की कीलों तक बेशक आजायें पर रस्सियों से नीचे रहें –

मन्त्र १३ – उद् वः ऊर्मिः शम्या हन्त्वापो योक्त्राणि मुञ्चत ।।
ताकि भरत जन पार चले जायें –

मन्त्र – ११ यदङ्ग त्वा भरताः सन्तरेयुः ॥

जब हम पार हो जायं तो तुम शीघ्र ही विपुल जल पूर्ण होकर अपनी अनेक धाराओं में बहती, समुद्र पर्यन्त जाती, हमारे खेतों को सींचना –
मन्त्र – १२ – प्र पिनध्वमिषयन्तीः सुराधा आ वक्षणा पृणध्वं यात शीभम् ।

भाव –––
मनुष्य की सतत आगे बढते जाने की इच्छा अनेकशः उसे प्रकृति के विरोध में ला खडा करती है।
इस सूक्त का यह महत्त्वपूर्ण सन्देश है कि मनुष्य को प्रकृति से संवाद करना चाहिये – विवाद, विरोध अथवा संघर्ष नहीं।

मनुष्य को यह समझना है कि प्रकृति नाना प्रकार से उसका उपकार करती है। नदियाँ हमारे खेतों को सींचकर हमें अन्न देती हैं। यदि नदियों में जल न हो तो हमारा जीवन संभव न हो। अतः नदियों में प्रचुर जल होना ही चाहिये। वहीं दूसरी ओर, गहरी जलपूर्ण नदियाँ हमारा मार्ग रोकती हैं।

आधुनिक विकास की दृष्टि यह है कि जहाँ जल अधिक है वहाँ बाँध बना दो, जहाँ कम हो वहाँ नहरें ले आओ। अर्थात् हर प्रकार से प्रकृति पर विजय प्राप्त करके उसका शोषण करो। प्रकृति को अपने अनुरूप मोड लो। आज सारी मनुष्य जाति विकास के इस रूप के दुष्परिणाम भोग रही है।

इसके विपरीत वेद की विकास दृष्टि है – प्रवाच्यं शश्वधा वीर्यं तदिन्द्रस्य.... अर्थात् मनुष्य प्रकृति के हर रूप का मान रखे और उसके अनुरूप व्यवहार करे। उससे जहाँ जो लाभ स्वाभाविक रूप से मिले सके उसे वहाँ से ग्रहण करके प्रकृति का उपकार माने।

प्रचुर जल प्रवाह से युक्त नदियाँ खेतों को सींच कर हमपर बहुत उपकार करती हैं। ॠषि इसके लिये पुनः पुनः उनके प्रति आभार प्रकट करता है – किन्तु वही नदियाँ आवागमन में बाधक बन जाती हैं। मनुष्य यायावर है। वह अनेक प्रयोजनों से यात्राएँ करता है। इस सूक्त में भरतों को गायों की खोज में अथवा युद्ध के लिये जाना है। सेना के प्रयाण में नदियाँ प्रायः बाधा बन जाती हैं। अतः ॠषि नदियों से रास्ता देने की प्रार्थना कर रहा है। रामायण में राम समुद्र से यही प्रार्थना करते हैं। फिर सेना नदी के उस स्थल को खोजती हैं जहाँ पानी सबसे कम हो और सैनिक, रथ, अश्व गज आदि आसानी से पार हो जाएँ। रामायण में राम सेतु रामेश्वरम् तथा लंका के बीच का सबसे उथला स्तर । अतः राम वहीं से पार जाते हैं।

नदी यहाँ जीवन मार्ग की बाधाओं का प्रतीक भी है। मनुष्य को अनेक बाधाओं से जूझना पडता है । वह हर बाधा को झुकाकर, हराकर ही अपने लक्ष्य तक पहुँच सकता है।

उद् वः ऊर्मिः शम्या हन्त्वापो योक्त्राणि मुञ्चत – का अभिप्राय है कि जब पानी पहिये की कीलों तक हो तो अपना काम कर लो । अगर पानी बैलों की रस्सी तक आ गया तो कोई कार्य न हो पाएगा। जीवन में भीषण बाधाओं के अनेक क्षण आते हैं। पर ऐसे क्षण भी आते हैं जब बाधाएँ कम हों। उन सुअवसरों का लाभ उठाकर कर्म में प्रवृत्त हो जाना चाहिये। जो व्यक्ति सब कुछ अनुकूल होने की प्रतीक्षा करता रहेगा वह कभी कुछ नहीं कर पाएगा॥ प्रतिकूलतायें कभी भी निःशेषतया समाप्त नहीं होंगी। अतः प्राप्त अवसर को गँवाना नहीं चाहिये।।

रमध्वं सोम्याय वचसा – में यह ध्वनि है कि जीवन में अनेक व्यक्ति या परिस्थितियाँ हमें कर्म में विश्राम के लिये प्रोत्साहित करते हैं। किन्तु कर्ममार्ग के पथिक को अनथक चलते रहना होता है। तभी वह अपने लक्ष्य तक पहुँच सकता है।

Lectures on the Bhagavadgeeta, Part - 2 | Why Sanskrit A very strong and positive message of the Bhagawadgita is that one must take oneself and one's tasks very seriously. Only then will one be able to do one's b...

Lectures on the Bhagavad Geeta by Dr. Ashutosh Mathur
Part - 1

Please subscribe to our channel to watch the entire series

Lectures on the Bhagavadgeeta, Part - 1 | Why Sanskrit In this series I will discuss the relevance of the Bhagavadgeeta from the point of view of our daily lives. We all want success in all our ventures in our li...

My article published in the last month on 'Sanskrit in Delhi University'.
Give it a read

This semester I got to talk about Sanskrit studies in the world today.

One very interesting point that has emerged is that despite all predictions of doom, Sanskrit is alive and kicking.
Several universities around the world are teaching Sanskrit with greater enthusiasm.

And much to the disappointment of its detractors Sanskrit is being seen as a part of world heritage.

Universities abroad are pitching it (not as the language of the Brahmanas or even Hindus or even India !!).

At the the minimum it is being described as the language of culture, religion, philosophy South Asia as it represents both Hinduism and Buddhism. With Japan and china, both, showing greater concern for their ancient Buddhist heritage, a huge number of Mahayana texts in Sanskrit are drawing attention.

At a broader level Sanskrit is described on sites of various Universities as the language of religion, culture and philosophy of south Asia and the entire south-east Asia.

Some take a step further and in view of its close connection with Persian and Iran and through it to large parts of central Asia, call it the language of Asia.

A still broader view sees Sanskrit as the oldest surviving language in the entire Indo-European family and hence having its reach from far west to far east - a language that has influenced life and thought in Europe and Asia and continues to do so through many hundreds of languages and dialects spread all over Europe, central Asia, South Asia, South East Asia.

Continuing my reading of the Yuddha kand in Valmiki Ramayana.

Initially disgusted to hear Rama say such aweful and insulting words to Sita when she comes to him from Ashok vatika.

But then you read further and you see the poet's design.

As Sita prepared to enter the pyre, all the gods descend from heaven and chide Rama for his conduct. They tell him that he is Vishnu incarnate and he is expected to behave properly.
He cannot behave like an ordinary person.
My take on this is that Valmiki is condemning such behaviour. He expects decent and civilized people to show sensitivity towards a woman who has been physically violated. The poet is critical of people who treat a victim as an accused.
This is clear from Sita's reply to Ràm.
Ram says he can't accept her back as his wife for 'she must have been violated by Ravan.' Ram has no evidence for this. What he says is a conjecture.

Sita does not spare Ràm. She almost ridicules Ram for relying on conjecture than on his own direct experience of Sita's
Conduct. 'I have been with you since childhood , you have seen me, you know me so well and yet this doubt! This doubt shows that you doubt not me but your ownself, your own knowledge and your own experience.

Then Valmiki makes a very bold statement through Sita -

Why should I be faulted if I have been violated? Why should a victim be seen as an accused???

I think Vàlmiki made Rama speak such words to Sita only to rebut him and to stand with Sita and to send out this very strong message.

I feel we have done grave injustice to our great kavyas by missing their poetic essence and their message
We have instead converted them into matters of faith, not open to any critical appreciation.
Valmiki's Ramayana has been, in my understanding a much misunderstood poem.

Why is Rama shown to be an incarnation of Vishnu ?
Why is Vishnu shown to have come to the earth as a human being ?

This is not a matter of faith. This is a matter to be probed by a sahridaya - a person who has the heart to appreciate good poetry.

In the Yuddha kanda Valmiki gives the reason. When Kumbhakarna is woken up he asks Ravàna the reason for disturbing his sleep. Ravàna says he has a boon that he cannot be killed by gods or demons. While asking for a boon he had thought that no MAN could ever defeat him. So he had deliberately excluded men from his boon.

And here is a Man who is sure to take his life !!!
This is the real message. Do not underestimate man. He has immense capacities. He is God incarnate. If he decides he can raise an army of monkeys, cross the ocean and kill a mighty demon like Ravàna. No adversity can stop him from achieving his goal.

The message is that it takes a man to fight evil. You don't need gods to do your job. One man has the potential to rise. He only has to realize what he is capable of.

We overlook this message and are happy treating Rama as God.

Let us read our texts carefully and try to rediscover their truth.

In the sabha parva of the Mahabharata Draupadi is shown to be arguing very strongly in favour of her rights as a woman. She challenges Duryodhana's right to call her a slave. She argues that Yudhishthira could not have put her at stake as she was an independent person.

These arguments are very logical and legally very strong.

But then we also come across arguments which sound quite atrocious and in fact
go against the spirit of the spirited defence of the rights of a woman by Draupadi herself.

Sample some if these

Men must respect women because

1 women are extremely ill tempered, arrogant and want everyone to do their bidding ;

2 they are an evil power and their curse can destroy homes;

3 they are stupid and very unfriendly, so better behave properly with them ;

4 s*x and pleasure and progeny depend upon them so behave properly with them ;

Are these arguments for or against women??