Perception and inference are valid sources of knowledge in the Indian traditions and so must be respected
Recently, India witnessed the establishment of the historic ‘Sengol’ in her new building of the parliament. The ceremony verily is the demonstration of our civilisational journey and re-discovering the ancient tradition once practised. The ‘Sengol’ is not a symbol of power, or lustre that is passed on from one generation to another rather it envelops a much wider connotation with deep philosophic meanings. The ‘Sengol’ as a concept is deeply rooted in the idea of ‘Aram’ - the Tamil equivalent of ‘Dharma’. Saint Tiruvalluvar, in his timeless ‘Thirukkural’, sings the glorification of ‘Sengonmai’ as ‘rule with justice’, which is one of the most precious achievements of the Indic civilisation.
The ‘Sengol’, or the Staff or the Sceptre, is the foundation or support of all virtues and ethics essential for the state. The establishment was a moment of joy, pleasure, and pride for most of us. But some people doubted its grandeur and importance and also questioned its historicity. Being ignorant of our rich indic tradition of ‘Sruti and Smriti’, such people sought the justification of this entire ceremony. To understand the significance of Sengol, it is necessary to sweep over the tradition of Sruti and Smriti.
One of the distinctive features of India is her preservation and dissemination of knowledge for almost five thousand years at least. India bestows utmost importance on knowledge, and that is why India is known as a ‘knowledge culture’. This knowledge tradition is beyond the boundaries of any spatiotemporal relationship (desatita and kalatita) as well as continuous (nirantara). The entire outlook of Indian knowledge tradition is an interplay of Sruti and Smriti. There is a very intricate relationship between Sruti and the Smriti. The Brihaspati Smriti perceives these two as the two eyes for the men of wisdom and deprived of these two, one may lose their path and fall.
Since the Vedas are transmitted orally and are perceptible to the auditory sense, it is termed Sruti. It means ‘learning by hearing’ which is the primary revelation at the beginning of creation.’ This revelation was ‘seen’ by the primaeval seers; on the other hand, Smriti means ‘recollection’ and is the collective term for all other sacred literature which is considered to be secondary to Sruti (Van Buitenen, 1974. Revelation is the inner visualisation of the true nature of various entities and their attributes. Vedic seers acquired this revelation through a progressive self-culture (atma-sanskara). Sruti statements are considered infallible and hence are authoritative.
In his book ‘Freedom at Midnight’, Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins remind us of the above-mentioned ritual that happened at sundown on 14th August 1947 in Delhi. This pious ritual ended with chanting 11 verses of Kolaru Pathigam - a Tamil text – to instil good thoughts in mind.
Indian philosophical tradition accepts Sruti as the only means of Dharma. Sruti as well as Smriti are regarded as valid means of knowledge. Sruti provides a firm foundation for all knowledge traditions, and practices. Regarding the validity of Smritis, the Mimamsa School of philosophy presents an enriching argument by saying that “if the Smriti writers knew a certain action that should not be done, how could they declare it to be one that should be done, and thus mislead the contemporary society? One may argue that some sort of memory of the Sruti provides the necessary foundation for Smriti writers to codify some acts. But such memory is also not possible in the absence of some previous perception. The Smritis cannot be solely based on memory because memory demands previous cognition or experience. Continual of some sort of cultural memory also does not authenticate them. On the other side, the memory of the Vedas is not authenticated merely by its unbroken tradition but by the fact that the Vedas are perceptible to us during its recitation. In the case of Smriti , no such prior cognition is available to support their theories and practices.
Indian tradition accepts Smriti as reliable based on inference (anumana) which is a valid source of knowledge. The reason behind such inference is the fact that ‘the agent is the same’, i.e., the author of the concerned Smriti and the performer of the acts prescribed by the Sruti are the same individual. It is also quite reasonable to accept that knowledge of Sruti texts is remembered, while certain Sruti texts and their wordings may be now lost. Different philosophical schools answer this question differently. The Mimamsa School assumes that Smritis are derived from Vedic texts now forgotten or inaccessible to us currently. In this way, Smriti, through inference, becomes the source of valid knowledge.
Perception and Inference, thus, are valid sources of knowledge in the Indian culture. Amidst the looming controversies surrounding the tradition of ‘Sengol’, its cultural validity can be significantly proven through the institutional memory that rests with the Adheenams of Tamil Nadu. In the present context, the tradition of handing over Sengol as a symbolic transfer of power is an inalienable cultural embodiment of the Sruti-Smriti tradition of ancient India. Its reiteration in modern India and symbolic placement in the new Indian parliament signifies the cultural awakening and echoes the civilisational idioms in the 21st century.
(The author is member Secretary IGNCA)