Commentary on 'A Cloud Turned Goose': Sanskrit in the Vernacular Millenium

‘A Cloud Turned Goose’ by Shulman and Bronner emphasized some of the themes that we have discussed in class. The article emphasizes the importance of Sanskrit in poetry. More precisely, the authors argue that to understand Sanskrit poetry one must first grasp, the audience, language and theme used in order to relate to the historical biography being displayed. They acknowledge the fact that Sanskrit is a powerful language used to transcend local contexts, but ends up enriching regional histories. With this he begins discussion of the way in which Sanskrit is employed by poets and how this relates to the history or particularities of their time.

One of the first things that these authors argue is the fact that “Sanskrit participated…in the project of inventing and elaborating distinctive regional cultures and identities”. This implies two things. First, that if Sanskrit is employed in poetry which relates specifically to a certain audience that shares a particular cultural identity. In this regard, as we have mentioned in previous classes the social context, cannot be removed from in order to experience rasa, or in other words the intended experience. However, the authors do state that even though the poet sticks to his limited identity he has freedom to appeal to the world (6). This to me would imply some sort of universal appeal on the basis of how emotions are experienced. However, I believe that even the appeal to emotions and the way they are experienced is deeply influenced by one’s social influences.

Second, is the fact that given the social world in India, regional cultures and identities are often closely related to religion. This then brings religion and aesthetics under the same umbrella. This leaves one to ask whether or not religion can be separated from associated meanings that Sanskrit encompasses. From the perspective of these authors and the importance of figurative language, meanings of words and time and space within Sanskrit poetry and the specific way that the audience is suppose to understand the poem, it seems that in order for one to relate to the depth of the poem, one must understand a system of meanings made available through religious symbols, deities and ideals. For example, the union of Rama and Sita towards the ending of the poem would not be fully grasped without a cultural understanding of oneness. More specifically, as the authors claim the oneness one experience here is closely associated with the way the bhakti practitioner through meditation becomes one with God (27). In this respect, religion enriches the understanding of poetry.

Further, the authors exemplify, “how are we to understand the dynamics of the linguist spectrum underlying a poet’s choice of language?” (8). This issue has been at the forefront of our discussions. The idea is who are the intended audience of Sanskrit poetry? Given the spectrum of which the Sanskrit language is enjoyed, culture would play an important role in directly interpreting or understanding the intended experience. However, this does not mean that such poetry should be exclusive to certain regions. Given the scope of difficulty of translating Sanskrit or translating direct meanings, I would think that it would almost become impossible for someone either than the poet himself to interpret the direct meanings. However, the authors do make it a point to establish that Sanskrit enables poets to condense meanings and contents into single sentences (11), so I guess it would be best left up to the Sanskrit specialists to further break down this conflict.