Thursday, June 10, 2021

Bhakti fundamentalism and ossification in Carnatic music

Too many Hindus online engage in the rhetoric - 

"We are the last surviving pagan civilization"

Forgetting that Hinduism is v distinct in various ways from Greco-Roman paganism

Listing a few below
 1. Our gods are "cosmopolitan" covering the whole subcontinent

2. Our tradition is deeply textual, with texts going back several thousand years. With critical editions drawn up, ensuring uniformity across the country

3. Our priestly class is cosmopolitan in orientation. With an affinity to the Sanskrit language that transcends localisms and geographic diversity

4. Our pilgrimages are "cosmopolitan" too. Kashi gets pilgrims from TN, from Gujarat, from Assam. So does Tirumala

5. Our religion is deeply "personal" and "devotional". Not merely focused on public ritual and sacrifice

In this respect, we have certain features more in common with parts of Christianity

"Bhakti" is unconditional. It stems from pure love. Not merely a "done thing"

6. Our religion is not purely based on stories of the divine. But has a quasi-historical core

The two itihAsas, where gods mingle with men, are in part historical. Deal with real historical personages

So religion is linked to the history of the land

7. Our country has preserved endogamous links to the ancient past

The descendants of the so-called "solar", "lunar" dynasty kings are still with us. 

So are the descendants of specific sages who composed several Vedic hymns

The genetic link to the primordial past is preserved

You are getting emotional here...

I am not talking of hate in a general sense, which no doubt exists

Rather of the mainstream "western" view of paganism vs Hinduism

It's v v different

So the idea of states rights, championing localism etc, doesn't come naturally to Hindu conservatives

At least for Mahabharata, there is v likely a historical core

It is itihAsa, and recounts the fortunes of the kuru dynasty during an important phase in their history

But likely embellished a lot over centuries

Ramayana - less sure. It's a celebration of ideals

Carnatic music is deeply linked to the idea of intense personal devotion

Admire Nag's stance below

Having said that, there are secular needs and secular concerns as well in society

Music should engage with those needs as well to have a broad reach (w/o being atheistic)

Much of the SJW / atheistic tendencies in Carnatic music that we see is a reaction to a certain type of bhakti fundamentalism

Where it is declared that Carnatic music is about bhakti and bhakti only

To my mind, that's not helpful.

All of us, however devout, have needs that are more mundane

We have livelihoods, relationships, familial love, romantic love, personal triumphs, disappointments, tragedies

Music ought to engage with all of that too

By no means I am supporting the likes of TM Krishna, and his brand of politicized Carnatic music

I think Carnatic's music's Hindu roots and its strong affinity to religious life ought to be acknowledged by all its practitioners

But it can't be just that. There's more to life

Am no Carnatic music expert

But what I observe is a certain ossification. Where you keep singing the same old 18th cen devotional compositions (which are no doubt brilliant)

You don't have new compositions coming through addressing new themes

That's definitely a problem

I think in brahmanic circles, a new sampradAya doesn't become "legitimate" without a unique commentary on the brahma sUtras

shrI rAmAnuja distinguished ViśiṣṭādvaitaVedānta by authoring a distinctive commentary on both Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita

When anyone attempts a "history" of India in the future, I'd like them to title their work - 

"History and Memory"

Too many history books are only about "history" - what is demonstrably true

But it would be great to have a book that deals with "memory" too

(Contd..)

By Memory, one refers to that 

"confused mass of ideas, emotions, words and images, often contradictory, argumentative and divisive" (borrowed from Robert Tombs)

So "history" can begin with conventional AIT hypotheses, mahAjanapadas, rise of Magadha, Mahapadmananda, Mauryas etc etc

But Memory can take a different route.

Discussing the purANic lineages. 
The Chandra-vamsha, the Surya-vamsha
The figure of Veda Vyasa
Epic history

"Memory" can also include "hagiographic accounts"

How Shankara vanquished rival ideologies
His Digvijayas
The great stories around the bhakti saints of yore
The legends of Alwars and Nayanars

By demarcating "history" and "memory", and discussing them side by side, you get the best of both the worlds

You get the "official" incontrovertible facts.
But you also get the equally precious memory of the civilization

And yet no one can accuse you of mixing fact with fiction

To my mind, this is how "history" writing ought to be approached

Don't restrict yourself to "written records", "inscriptions", "manuscripts"

Expand on that and discuss what Indians think about their past

And yet don't cross the line and push "Memory" as "history" either

The idea / inspiration for this thread came from a favorite book of mine authored by the movie critic Andrew Sarris - 

Who titled his fond recollection of the "Golden Age" - 

"You Ain't Heard Nothin' Yet": The American Talking Film, History and Memory, 1927-1949@Vishnudasa_ tells me that "memory" literature is very common in Native american and African studies

Over there, it is because the cultures often lack written records altogether

In India, written records galore. Except that they are not "histories". Rather "memories" on Was referring to the brahminical synthesis achieved between 500 BCE & 500 CE

Systematization of the two epics
Emergence of major Vedantic works (Gita, Brahma Sutras)
Composition of all major purANas
Development of local devotional cults that were consistent with itihAsa/purANas

Not a huge fan of censorship

I read Romila Thapar, Guha and others in my teens.

They were not poor scholars, albeit v biased and prejudiced

But I was aware of their bias even while I read them. Didn't "convert" me to their viewpoint

Things were a LOT better in early 20th century

Several Indian historians who wrote on specific periods, specific regions

Very little interest in genuine historical / religious scholarship in India among RW crowd

Most people are into writing books that popularize / dumb down already popular traditions

Modern retelling of epic tales, purANic tales etc

Bland, dry scholarship - nobody's interested

There are no seminal contributions to understanding specific traditions, in readable English for a wider audience

If you want serious works on specific traditions / specific texts, you have to go to indological departments in the West

Nothing comes out in India sadly afaik

Sure there are several traditional scholars

Many of them are getting aged

But their medium is typically oral. In the form of upanyAsas

They don't usually write books. Let alone in English

Radical religiosity / radical conservatism can work even w.r.t. social values / habits

Some classic e.g. - 

1. Christian missionaries making slavery unpalatable
2. Victorian prudes making sexual mores more conservative in 19th cen relative to 18th cen

@holland_tom you may be interested in this thread. 

An account of paganism's decline and Christianity's rise b/w 2nd and 4th cen influenced by Peter Brown's reading

Would be great to hear your thoughts

https://t.co/3pzkBMk0D1

What the Roman Empire lacked was a class akin to the brAhmaNas in India, who could create a uniform and elaborate mythological framework, that people could relate to across the empire


Pagan religion remained stoutly particularist, without the cosmopolitan tendencies classical Hinduism of say the Gupta age possessed

Elite pagans did not see the problem of Christianity, as they were secure in their localized religious cultures

Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor invoked "Providentia Deorum" serenely

He wrote in late 2nd cen CE -However paganism still remained very significantly on the intellectual scene, long after Constantine's conversion

And it managed to convert back Julian, Constantine's nephew, back to Paganism. 

Who was the emperor as well b/w 361 and 363 CE
(Julian the Apostate)

Julian's conversion back to Paganism, was not an arbitrary whim of a king

But one accomplished by pagan philosophers

To understand Julian's conversion, we have to go back to Porphyry of Tyre (232-303 CE), who wrote a stinging criticism of Christian His book "Philosophy from Oracles and Against the Christians" was banned by Christian Constantine!

Perhaps one of the earliest instances of a book being banned by the regal But Porphyry influenced deeply his colleague Iamblichus, another distinguished pagan

And it was Iamblichus's pupils who reconverted Julian
So Porphyry had his revenge on Constantine!

But Porphyry influenced deeply his colleague Iamblichus, another distinguished pagan

And it was Iamblichus's pupils who reconverted Julian
So Porphyry had his revenge on Constantine!

But Julian's conversion was an aberration. Christianity had come to stay

After Julian's death, his bodyguard successor Jovian turned the empire Christian again after military setbacks against the Persian This brings this somewhat disjointed thread to an end

Some key takeaways on the rise of Christianity - 

1. Christian sense of community and uniformity struck a sharp contrast to pagan particularism and localism

2. Paganism lost the patronage of rich noblemen post 3rd cen

3. The "little peace of the church" in late 3rd cen contributed to Christianity's rise in a crucial period of its history

4. The cosmopolitanism of empire had as much to do with Christianity's rise as anything else!

.... 
@entropied
On CH Dr. Bharat Gupt said that there are many examples of destruction of pagan cultures by Abrahmaics but there's example of pagans reviving their original cultures.

Basically we are up against massive historical odds. H will have to be pioneers & trailblazers to win this.