Sanskrit Textual Practices in Gujarat, 1800-Present

Scholastic Publics: Sanskrit Textual Practices in Gujarat, 1800-Present by Arun Brahmbhatt A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department for the Study of Religion University of Toronto © Copyright by Arun Brahmbhatt 2018 Scholastic Publics: Sanskrit Textual Practices in Gujarat, 1800-Present Arun Brahmbhatt Doctor of Philosophy Department for the Study of Religion University of Toronto 2018 Abstract This dissertation addresses the complex negotiations of “tradition” in colonial and postcolonial modernity through a study of the Swaminarayan sampradāy, a rapidly growing transnational community founded in Gujarat at the turn of the nineteenth century. It argues that the community produced Sanskrit texts partly to engage its “scholastic publics”— imaginative and interpretive sites of debate and contestation—to consolidate, strengthen, legitimize, and even divide the sampradāy over its 200-year history. In doing so, members of the sampradāy maintain a concerted privileging of classical Sanskrit knowledge systems, long after the purported demise of these systems. Chapter 1 outlines the Swaminarayan sampradāy’s perceived interlocutors through an analysis of a nineteenth-century text chronicling the sampradāy’s public debates. These debates provide the sampradāy with a template for a scripturally-based rationale for its code of conduct, its system of Vedānta, and its very notion of sampradāy. Chapter 2 extends the historical discussion into the early twentieth century, when the sampradāy makes use of a burgeoning print culture to vocally criticize powerful opponents, democratize the scholastic through Gujarati translations and monthly magazines, and legitimate apocryphal texts. The ii Swaminarayan scholastic commitment remains to sampradāy: safeguarding the community at large, nourishing the community from within, and mitigating nascent sectarianism. The second half of the dissertation addresses the questions of scholasticism and sampradāy through a connected lens: Vedānta commentaries. It traces the hermeneutical and exegetical patterns that characterize three separate moments of commentarial production in the sampradāy. These patterns demonstrate a shifting commitment to the more established school of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta over two centuries in the articulation of Swaminarayan Vedānta. In the wake of the sectarian division of the sampradāy, these very technical Vedāntic debates are used to authorize one particular Swaminarayan interpretation as the Swaminarayan interpretation, within a Vedānta scholastic public. iii Acknowledgments It is an impossible task to acknowledge all the people whose encouragement and support have contributed to the shape of this dissertation. I must start by thanking my dissertation committee. Ajay Rao has been an exemplary supervisor in helping me navigate the sketchy terrain of doctoral training. I owe a great debt to his time, energy, and warmth, and his willingness to discuss the minutiae of Sanskrit exegesis. I will always appreciate Srilata Raman’s incisive criticism, sharp wit, and turn of phrase. Malavika Kasturi has read this dissertation more thoroughly than I could have ever hoped for, and has consistently trained my historian’s eye. I only hope that I have done justice to their careful and sustained guidance. I must also thank those who have pushed me to refine my theoretical and methodological approaches, both in the study of religion and in the study of South Asia. This includes Jennifer Harris, Amira Mittermaier, Pamela Klassen, Christoph Emmrich, Arti Dhand, Bart Scott, Karen Ruffle, Reid Locklin, Bhavani Raman, Frank Cody, Ayesha Irani, Kajri Jain, and Ritu Birla. My graduate study at University of Toronto truly provided me with an embarrassment of riches. I am grateful for Hanna Kim, Raymond B. Williams, and Brian Hatcher, who have taken an interest in and have shaped my work greatly. This work has also been thoroughly enriched by my participation in the “Vedanta Through the Ages” Working Group, for which I thank Lawrence McCrea, Gary Tubb, Christopher Minkowski, Anand Venkatkrishnan, Elaine Fisher, and Michael Allen. Further, I would never have embarked upon doctoral study without the mentorship of the following individuals: Joseph Walser, Brian Black, Simon Brodbeck, Anne Monius, Parimal Patil, and Francis X. Clooney, S.J. iv Through my years at UofT, I have found critical and influential conversation partners in Rajesh Balkaran, Eric Steinschneider, and Jonathan Peterson, who have each left their mark on this dissertation. I must especially thank Usman Hamid, who has been a tireless listener, a generous critic, and an incomparable friend. For their constant camaraderie, laughter, and positive peer pressure, I thank Aldea Mulhern, Maria Dasios, Jairan Gahan, Justin Stein, Ian Brown, Rebecca Bartel, Matt King, Adil Mawani, Sanchia deSouza, Brigidda Bell, Zoe Anthony, Andrew Tebbutt, Michelle Christian, Nika Kuchuk, Kalpesh Bhatt, Roxanne Korpan, Saliha Chattoo, Alena Drieschova, Candis Haak, and Elizabeth Klaiber. I am deeply appreciative of Fereshteh Hashemi, an “angel” to the entire DSR community. I would also like to acknowledge the people who have supported me from afar: Emilia Bachrach, Sarah Pierce Taylor, Shruti Patel, Jenn Ortegren, Drew Thomases, Trina Hogg, and Jennifer Lemche. This dissertation was generously funded by a Department of Historical Studies Graduate Fellowship Research from the University of Toronto Mississauga, as well as an Andrew W. Mellon/John E. Sawyer Seminar Graduate Fellowship. Research in India and the United Kingdom was supported by a Fulbright-Nehru Research Fellowship, the Selva J. Raj Endowed Dissertation Research Fellowship, and grants from the University of Toronto. However, my time in India would have been fruitless without the guidance of Sadhu Shrutiprakashdas (Gandhinagar), Sadhu Bhadreshdas (Sarangpur), Sadhu Poornavallabhdas (Kandari), and Shastri Hariprakashdas (Gandhinagar). I must also thank those who made Ahmedabad, London, and Toronto feel like home—particularly Kshama and Nimish Patel. Finally, I have the utmost gratitude for the personal, emotional, and spiritual support of so many family members, friends, and loved ones. I am but a reflection of your grace. v Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv List of Tables viii List of Appendices ix Note on Transliteration and Translation x Introduction 1 0.1 Scholastic Publics: Modernity and Sampradāy 1 0.2 Theoretical Framework 6 0.3 The Swaminarayan Sampradāy: Śāstrīyatā and Vidvattā 12 0.4 Chapter Outline 21 Chapter 1: Envisioning and Engaging a Scholastic Public 25 1.1 Introduction 25 1.1.1 Śāstrārtha: Public Debate 25 1.1.2 Sacred Biography, Digvijaya, and Doxography 28 1.2 Debating the “Other” 33 1.2.1 Meat, Liquor, and Sex in Junagadh 33 1.2.2 Defeating the Māyāvāda in Kāśī 48 1.2.3 Defeating the Puṣṭimārga in Navanagar 51 1.2.4 Ācārya, Avatāra, and Sampradāya in Baroda 57 1.3 Conquering the Quarters: Conclusion 64 Chapter 2: Scholasticism in the Age of Print 69 2.1 Introduction 69 2.2 Debating Vaidikatva 72 2.2.1 Prelude: Trouble in Surat 77 2.2.2 A Quarrelsome Foe: The Śaṅkarācārya of Dwarka 79 2.2.3 Appealing to Kāśī 84 2.3 Cultivating an Internal Scholastic Public 90 2.3.1 Translating Vedānta 91 2.3.2 Criticizing the Leadership: Books, Schools, and Sects 94 2.4 Publishing Commentaries 101 2.4.1 The Market for Print in Bombay 103 2.4.2 Twentieth-Century Commentarial Publishing in the Swaminarayan Sampradāy 110 2.4.3 Apocrypha & Sectarianism 111 2.5 Conclusion 117 vi Chapter 3: Vedānta in Swaminarayan Commentaries 120 3.1 Introduction 120 3.2 Vedānta: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed… 123 3.2.1 Vedānta and Commentarial Traditions 123 3.2.2 “Textual Reuse” 130 3.2.3 Periodizing Commentaries: On Plagiarism 136 3.3 Vedānta in Swaminarayan Sources 147 3.3.1 The Śikṣāpatrī, Vacanāmṛt, and Bhāṣyas 147 3.3.2 The Jijñāsādhikaraṇa 153 3.3.3 Metaphysics: Brahmajijñāsā 156 3.3.4 Soteriology: Prayojana 160 3.4 Conclusion 164 Chapter 4: Variable Exegesis—The Catuḥsūtrī in Swaminarayan Commentaries 167 4.1 Introduction 167 4.2 The Qualification for, and Purport of, Brahmajijñāsā: 1.1.1 172 4.3 Creating, Sustaining, and Dissolving the Universe: 1.1.2 185 4.4 The Scriptural Basis for Brahman: 1.1.3 & 1.1.4 198 4.5 Conclusion 206 Conclusion 207 Bibliography 213 Appendix 228 vii List of Tables Table 1: Early Swaminarayan Brahma Sūtra Commentaries 109 Table 2: Early Swaminarayan Upaniṣad Commentaries 109 Table 3: Early Swaminarayan Bhagavad Gītā Commentaries 110 viii List of Appendices Appendix: Śrīkaṇṭha Bhāṣya and Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya Ratna on Brahma Sūtra 1.1.3 & 1.1.4 231 ix Note on Transliteration and Translation Most Sanskrit words used in this dissertation have been transliterated according to the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). Gujarati words have been transliterated according to a modified version of IAST, including a loss of phonemic vowel length, especially at the end of a word (for example, “Sahajānand” instead of “Sahajānanda”). Nasalized vowels, which occur in Gujarati but not in Sanskrit, are represented with the following diacritic: ˜ (for example, “temã”). If a Sanskrit word has been adapted into Gujarati, and the source material I am dealing with is originally in Gujarati, I have opted to use the Gujarati transliteration (for example, “sampradāy” instead of “sampradāya”). Names of town and people have been given without diacritics, wherever these have been Anglicized in

Load more