________________
66
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
II. Discourse, Conditions and Dynamics of Tradition in South Asia
ered that Sanskrit was not the original Indo-European language. The discovery by archaeologists of the Indus valley civilisation, which in the opinion of many preceded the period in which the Veda was com posed, has placed the Veda in a relatively recent historical period.
However, in other respects modern scholarship has come up with results which have boosted the idea of the reliability of the Vedic tradition. The study of early phonological texts has shown that the oral preservation of at least certain Vedic texts has been more faithful than one might have considered possible. Max Müller was the first to edit and study the Bgunda prátisakhya, an old text which describes the phonology of the Rgueda in great detail. Müller discovered in this way that the Rgveda, which is the oldest text of the Vedic corpus, had been handed down for a period of well over two thousand years without the slightest change even in a single sound. Some scholars nowa. days go to the extent of stating that present-day recitation preserves the Rgueda and other Vedic texts so well that one might speak of a tape-recording (Witzel 1995: 91). The classical Indian belief in the unchangeable nature of the Veda has in a way been vindicated by these and other similar findings.
Modern scholarship has discarded many beliefs to which it was originally attracted, for whatever reason. No, Sanskrit is no longer the original language, it is not even the original Indo-European language. No, India no longer represents the origin of all culture, nor of all philosophy and wisdom. Yes, ancient India culture was just another' major culture, less old than some (e.g., Egypt), older than others (e.g., Islam). One might like to think that modern scholarship has been able to free itself from all unreliable presuppositions and unfounded beliefs.
As so often, reality is more complex. There can be no doubt that in-depth research has dismantled numerous preconceived ideas, both those of Indian origin and those that were European. The belief in an original invasion by conquering Aryans who brought civilisation to India, a belief so convenient to Western colonisers and invented by Europeans, is one of those that have fallen by the wayside. Indeed, the reaction in scholarship against colonialism and its intellectual her itage has done much good in unmasking certain types of presuppositions. But not all presuppositions are connected with colonialism or colonialist attitudes. Presuppositions that are pleasing to those belonging to the culture studied will be less systematically subjected to critical assessment and may linger on, either because no one is
aware of them, or because it is considered politically correct (or merely convenient) to leave them in place. It is to some of these ideas that we now turn.
We have seen that the Veda, in brahmanical tradition, is at the origin of almost all there is. In this form this idea has no appeal to modern scholarship. However, in a weakened form it is still very much alive, even among serious researchers. Questions about the origin of this or that feature of classical Indian culture are routinely investigated by tracing its roots in the Veda. At first sight this may seem reasonable, given that the oldest parts of the Veda are certainly the oldest literary remains we have from that part of the world. Yet on closer inspection it will become clear that it only makes sense if one accepts another presupposition, namely, that all those features of classical Indian culture belong to traditions that have their origin in the Veda. This is not self-evidently the case. Other influences may have been at work which were altogether different from the Veda and its adherents.
It goes without saying that the question here raised has to be investigated separately for each case that may attract our attention, and that general and unsupported assertions are of little use. Some classical traditions may derive directly from Vedic roots, others may not. Unfortunately modern scholarship often avoids the question altogether, and has a tendency to dive straight into the Vedic texts. An example is the research into the origins of the Sanskrit drama. In this case it is particularly simple to think of a non-Vedic source. The classical Sanskrit drama being a court drama, it is hard not to think of the rulers who, on the Indian sub-continent itself, cultivated a court ly drama not long before the Sanskrit drama manifested itself. These rulers were, of course, the Greeks, whose historical presence in northwestern India (and whose love for drama) is not contested. In spite of this, indological research discards the presence of the Greeks as a possible factor in the development of the Sanskrit drama, and prefers to concentrate on possible Vedic roots, knowing all the while that Vedic culture had no courtly drama and late-Vedic and early post-Vedic culture no sympathy for this kind of entertainment. By way of justification for this omission indologists tend to refer back to arguments which were originally presented by Sylvain Lévi at the end of the nineteenth century, but which are outdated in the present state of our knowledge and stopped being supported by their originator himself later on in his life. In spite of this, scholars refrain from carrying out a renewed reflection on this issue and obviously feel more comfortable with their old habit of searching for Vedic antecedents (Bronkhorst 2004).
There are serious reasons for exercising restraint while looking for the origin of everything Indian in the Veda. It is becoming ever more clear that it is not justified to identify the Aryans -i.e. those who called themselves drya, the authors and early users of the Vedic
"Wenn man bedenkt, dass das Prátisakhya nicht nur Tausende von Stellen aus den beiden Texten (ie, padapatha and samhitapatha of the Bgveda, JB) citirt, sondern auch die anscheinend geringfügigsten Abweichungen des einen von dem andern auf das genaueste registrirt, und dass in allen wesentlichen Punkten unsere besten Handschriften der beiden Texte mit den Angaben des Prätisakhya übereinstimmen, so darf man wohl mit Zuversicht schliessen, dass wir wirklich den Text des Rig Veda so besitzen, wie er vor mehr are 2000 Jahren den Verfassern des Prátisakhya vorlag" (Muller 18693)
