Traditional As Modern - Community, Discourse and Critique In Jnanadev Part III

- Jayant Lele

       Jnanadev presents this thought as an epilogue to his entreaty to Changdeo to abandon his arrogance so as to enter into a dialogue. However, unity that is produced by a dialogue is a differentiated unity, a state of intersubjectivity and not of pure subjectivity or objectivity. It is a unity of equals. Jnandev does not want us to ignore the material basis, the "body apriori", our subjective identity and intersubjective unity:

       If dialogue, pleasure of which is possible only through bodily existence ceases, then pleasure of (human) existence ceases too. Can anyone who has gained this treasure of dialogue ever rest happily in isolation?
The unity of equals, of human subjects in cooperative productive activity producing sustenance and meanings, makes for the reality of a speech community 'even in its negation. It creates the possibility of a discourse without words and of knowledge without senses. One can grapple with a theorem even before it is shaped in words.

       A spring of cohesiveness precedes the march of letters. Words follow once compassion has made its appearance.
Jnandev was not unaware of the dangers of mystical appropriation of this unity into an idealist monism of Pure Consciousness. Jnandev reminds us of the dialectic of identity and non-identity of subjects through Lord Krishna:

       In his state of blissful freedom Partha (Arjun) was about to lose his consciousness of self hence he was brought back to that state by means of questions.
and finally,

       Lord Krishna and Partha became an identity without dissolving self identity. Their discourse was like a lamp igniting another lamp.
        I have tried to demonstrate how the notions of community and discourse in Jnanadev's writing express the unity of opposites. For him actual community of the oppressed is also a negation of the potential community of subjects free of domination. The unity of this community rests on the productive social activity of human beings. On this question Jnandev is explicit.

Or

       One who discards ego-focality and ceases, to covet, acts in unity with his universal community.He asks us not to indulge in rituals and pilgrimages or worship of idols and deities .He urges us to follow our life practice according to meanings that are impregnated by the principles of potential community. For those who live in duplicity, those who use tradition and social order for deception Jnandev has harsh words.

       Jnandev pleads with than to return to a truly traditional practice which carries in it. in principle. true meanings of existence. consciousness and freedom. If unity of theory and practice has not been established in daily, productive existence then anyone who believes that he has resolved the enigma of existence through inference is no more than attempting to irrigate the soil with a mirage.
        Jnandev's exhortations for life according to social order (Dharma) I have been usually interpreted as a split in his thinking on spiritual and life. A comprehensive critique of these interpretations and of their impact on the life of the Varkaris will take me into the other two areas of investigation:
        into contemporary society. Here, I wish to try to counter these interpretations by merely pointing to that thrust of Jnandev's thought which rejects reliance on any external authority. The authority for providing guidance, for interpreting and directing social action rests with those subjects who remain active within social life.

       What is called authority rests on accomplishment through activity. How do you expect it to arise at the outset of one's journey?
And

       In the equanimity of consciousness, in the unity of mind and intellect, rests the essence of authority.

Finally

       Only those who embody the universal meaning of Sruti and Smruti in their activity and become examples of those principles in practice, have authority.

       Jnandev is even more explicit in rejecting the transcendental authority of the Vedas. In a telling verse he brings them on the level of subjectivity that must remain moot in the absence of a community of subjects.

       Even though Vedas have said a great deal and suggested many paths one must choose only that which ensures one's well being.
        So far I have attempted to bring together those core elements of Jnandev's thought which in their original form constitute a basis for critical appropriation of tradition. Jnandev's writings as well as the Varkari practice show that what is commonly interpreted as a community of devotees is at the same time a community of producers. It stands juxtaposed to the community of appropriators whose instrumental. ego-focal domination of society. in the name of unity of this juxtaposed. alienated duality. negates the liberating intentions of tradition. of potential community of equal subjects. To the appropriators as well as the oppressed Jnandev makes a plea for a discursive return to tradition. In rejecting the authority of the Vedas and of those who stand in an appropriative opposition to the basic principles of human communal existence Jnandev is seeking a discourse on tradition that must by its own rules. if successful, result in a revolutionary transformation of society. Jnandev s thought moves from the life practice of the oppressed (Samvnsarshrant) into its critical negation as a negation of illusions, falsehood and pain. To the latter are juxtaposed Being, Consciousness and Freedom as principles of the transcendent community of active subjects. This community, in its actuality, rests on production. It is a production of sustenance and meanings through activity and speech. Hence. it is a community of active native language speakers who reject renunciation as a remedy for their unfreedom. Thus, they retain their capability for critically examining hegemonic interpretation and for innovatively recreating universal meanings of tradition. By insisting that the meaning of Gita is both eternal and new and by demonstrating it through a poetic dialogue. Jnandev challenged the very foundations of Brahmin-Maratha hegemony without advocating self-destructive deviance. He placed oppression in dialectic of freedom. He rejected all authority that did not rest in the community without rejecting authority as such. In this way Jnandev's thought returns to practical life after a discursive journey into the meaning of tradition. His message is that of a revolutionary and critical productive activity within social practice.
A limited discursive attempt, represented by this paper, is open to criticism of academic exercise or even sophistry. Such a misunderstanding can be averted only by integrating this exploration with a comprehensive critique of hegemonic interpretations and of associated domination in social life.However. such a comprehensive, practical critique is a privilege of all who experience contradictions between ideology and existence. This paper can at best claim to have the intention of joining a critical dialogue of the community of the oppressed. In the absence of such an intention and effort guided by such an intention, all activity, academic as well as practical, will continue to have no roots in that community.