Audience, anxiety and envy

At roughly the same time that Saṅgharakkhita was active in Sri Lanka, the Burmese Saṅgha also began to adopt Sanskrit literary practices and inherited many of the new śāstric intellectual lineages flourishing in Sri Lanka at the beginning of the second millennium. Perhaps the most iconic example of the Burmese Saṅgha’s participation in this engagement with the Sanskrit cosmopolis is the Saddanīti, a twelfth-century encyclopaedia of literary sciences that was composed a little earlier than the Subodhālaṅkāra by a certain Aggavaṃsa. A late Burmese tradition has it that upon its completion the work was brought to Sri Lanka and was praised by the monks there as unlike anything they had produced.^[1] Of particular relevance to the reception of Sanskrit poetics within the Saṅgha is a passage in the Saddanīti that defends the fact that the older Pāli canonical literature does not conform to the standards of Sanskrit literary theory: The Buddha, furthermore, does not take into account the heaviness and lightness (i.e. the metrical weight) of his speech. He constructs his teaching according to the dispositions of those capable of enlightenment, without obscuring the essence of the Dhamma. The length or shortness of sounds is not to be criticised at all.

Even so, why do previous teachers state here and there that:

‘There is an elision of a syllable in the verses for the sake of guarding the metre,’ ‘also there is metathesis for the purpose of guarding the pronunciation,’ and ‘for the purpose of guarding the metre and for pleasant pronunciation’? […]

This is true but where the metre and pronunciation are to be guarded, the Buddha has guarded the metre and pronunciation. Where both are not to be guarded, however, the Buddha has not guarded the metre and pronunciation. It is in this connection that it is said: ‘The Buddha, furthermore, does not take into account the heaviness and lightness (i.e. the metrical weight) of his speech,’ etc. Moreover, the Buddha does not guard metre and pronunciation like the poets who do it as part of their profession. Rather, those words–that have been perfected by his expertise in literary science (akkhara-samaya) from time immemorial, for countless, hundred thousands of births, when he was a Buddha-to-be–fall from his propitious, lotus-l ike mouth. Some of them have a form as if [they were intended] to guard metre and pronunciation and some do not. In connection with those that have a form as if [they were intended] to guard metre and pronunciation, it could be said that ‘the Buddha guards metre and pronunciation.’ In connection with those that do not, it could be said that ‘the Buddha does not guard metre and pronunciation.’ It should be understood that the Buddha is not anxious or fearful on account of the criticism of others and that he does not guard metre and pronunciation out of anx-iety or fear.^[2]

In this fascinating discussion, the author is clearly concerned that Pāli litera ture will be judged on the basis of śāstric literary theory and takes great pains to explain that, while the Buddha has mastered literary science for countless eons, he does as he pleases. His intention is the liberation of sentient beings and he is not concerned with the aesthetic preoccupations of poets. The unease of the author concerning the seeming incompatibility of śāstric literary theory and the Pāli canon is made clear in his final lines. He states that the Buddha does not adhere to literary beauty out of an anxiety or fear of others. This statement intimates that some Buddhist authors at the time were fearful of the scrutiny of the śāstrins of the Sanskrit cosmopolis.

When presented with a discourse that regards those who are ignorant of Sanskrit aesthetics as animals, it is easy to see why these monks reimagined the Buddha as a perfectly accomplished aesthete who simply chose not to use his skills. The personal responsibility the monks felt for their irregular Pāli is made explicit in a variant of this passage found in R. C. Childers’ notes to his transla-tion of the Khuddakapāṭha. In Childers’ manuscript of the Saddanīti, the author continues that ‘in this work, with its confused syllables, [we] write in accordance with the tradition of the Pāli texts. We are not to be blamed (dosa) for this’.^[3] The author of this interpolation makes it explicit that he is not to be held morally responsible for the ‘irregularities’ of Pāli literature. It is not his fault (dosa).^[4] His use of the word dosa intimates that the merits and faults of literature were viewed not just as a matter of literary acumen but also one of moral aptitude for the Buddhist Saṅgha. The passage makes it clear furthermore that Buddhist monks felt compelled to conform to the standards of Sanskrit literary theory. The adoption of Sanskrit aesthetics into Pāli literature was, then, perhaps not simply a choice based on aesthetic attraction but was part of a wider concern or fear for the moral status of their intellectuals and literature.

In the Subodhālaṅkāra and other thirteenth-century Sri Lankan literature there is also an acute awareness of the scrutiny and critical gaze of other intellectuals. The mention of such an audience is important as it shows that there was a broader intellectual community (or at the very least the perception of a broader intellectual community) evaluating Pāli literary production on the basis of trans regional, trans-l inguistic aesthetic criteria. Verse eleven of the Subodhālaṅkāra off ers another hint to that eff ect, when Saṅgharakkhita warns that a fool who attempts to use literary embellishments without the instruction of a teacher will face the mirth (hāsabhāva) of the wise.^[5] A similar concern for censorship is expressed by Anomadassi at the beginning of the Daivajñakāmadhenu, his man ual of court astrology written during the reign of Parākramabāhu II (r. 1234–69), wherein he boldly announces that he ‘does not care about those envious demons who binge on quivering souls and cast scorn’.^[6]

Such outbursts indicate the sensitivity in thirteenth-century Sri Lanka to the scrutiny of other intellectuals in Sri Lanka and possibly in other parts of the Sanskrit cosmopolis. The ethics of aesthetics that were brought into the Pāli trad ition through the commentaries on the Kāvyādarśa were not simply reinforced according to the conscience of the individual author. Rather, fear of opprobrium from a broader intellectual community would ensure correct (e.g. normative from the point of view of the Kāvyādarśa) reproduction of literature and literary theory. What we have then is evidence not just of the spread of Sanskrit literary theory but more importantly of the acceptance of its socio-moral worldview, one that ensures the reproduction of its literary aesthetic.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

G. P. Malalasekera, The Pali Literature of Ceylon (1928; reprint Colombo: M. D. Gunasena, 1958), 185; Sāsanavaṃsa, ed. Mabel Bode (London: H. Frowde, 1897), 74.

[2]:

Saddanīti: La Grammaire Palie D’Aggavaṃsa, I Padamālā (Pariccheda 1–XIV), II Dhātumālā (Pariccheda XV–XIX), III Suttamālā (Pariccheda XX–XXVIII), ed. Helmer Smith (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1928–30), III, 843, l. 30–844, l. 25. This is a much revised translation based on A. K. Warder’s in Pali Metre: A Contribution to the History of Indian Literature (London: Pali Text Society, 1967), 67–8. Warder (pp. 66–7) also cites a second passage of a similar nature (Saddanīti, III, 843) in which it 264 is explicit that the potential criticism the Buddha might have feared was the criticism of ‘the wise’ (paṇḍita).

[3]:

Khuddaka-Pāṭha: A Pali Text, ed. R. C. Childers (London: Trübner, 1869), 329, quotes his manuscript of the Saddanīti as follows: imasmiṃ pakaraṇe ākulakkharatāyaṃ pāḷipakaraṇāgatanayena likhitaṃ. na tatthāmhākaṃ doso āropetabbo.

[4]:

It is possible that the shared terminology of ‘doṣa’ (fault) and ‘guṇa’ (merit) to describe moral behav iour in the tipiṭaka and literary qualities in kāvyaśāstra also assisted a convergence of the two moral systems. As noted by Margaret Cone in the Dictionary of Pali, the term ‘guṇa’ in the Pāli canon is often used in the general sense of ‘quality’, though nearly always denotes some positive attribute or virtue (e.g. D III 153,18* anavamatena guṇena yāti saggaṃ). Likewise, the term ‘dosa’ refers broadly speaking to ‘faults,’ though these often refer to a moral failure (e.g. J II 194,15: surāpāne dosaṃ disvā). That one’s moral condition also determines one’s social status is also a prominent theme in the Pāli canon. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the Buddha’s reconceptualization of Brahminhood in chapter 26 of the Dhammapada as being obtained by virtue rather than by birth. In his Papañcasudanī, Buddhaghosa echoes these sentiments using the term ‘guṇa’ (virtue) and states that ‘a Brahmin is not a Brahmin by birth but by means of his virtues (guṇa)’ (III 436–7: na jātiyā brāhmaṇo guṇehi pana brāhmaṇo hoti).

[5]:

Subodhālaṅkāra, v. 11.

[6]:

Daiwagnakâmadhênu, ed. C. A. Seelakkhanda (Benares: Vidyâ Vilâs Press, 1906), v. 3.