|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 9 February 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Musings of a ghost from the past by Prof. Suwanda H. J. Sugunasiri - Part 3 : Folk language for a folk hero Whether we are convinced or not of his arguments, are there any reasons why Professor Gamlath's language should have been more accessible? There indeed seems to be first, it is that he is writing about a folk hero! I remember how thrilled I was to see from the stage a hall full of people, wherever we took Maname. In every nook and corner of the country professor Sarachchandra is a folk hero because he gave a folk tradition back to the people - not just the elite, but the average person on the street. Secondly, if in his Maname Natya Saywanaya, Professor Gamlath engages in a critical analysis, Guru Guna Samara is more biographical, even gossipy if you like, than literary. He is telling us stories about the man behind the art, giving us an intimate look. So it is a folk than a scholarly activity. Thirdly, it was in the newspaper that the material published as a book was first written. Surely the newspaper is the common man's arena! Buddhist ethos violated? And what about the Buddhist ethos of simplicity? Is our professor guilty of hijacking it? What distinguishes Buddhist art from Hindu Art, e.g., if I remember the venerable Professor Paranavitana correctly, is its simplicity. Ornateness is the hallmark of the former. This simplicity comes from the example of the Buddha himself with the classical education of a prince, he had access to the language of learning of the time, namely, Sanskrit. But he chose the Prakrit form, which has come to us in the form of Pali. Compared to Sanskrit, it has a relatively simpler grammatical structure, fewer conjoint consonants, and a simpler vocabulary. The Buddha's preference for the Prakritic was clearly to reach the masses - as wide a spectrum of people as possible just as in the case of Professor Gamlath's readership, it's not that there were not, in the intended, and real, audience the well-educated. Many of Buddha's disciples indeed came from the Brahminic class itself. But the Buddha eschewed the Sanskritic in preference to the Prakritic. Now this was in sharp contrast to the Brahminic intent. Sanskrit, the language of royalty (as, for example, in Kalidasa's plays) as well, allowed them to keep their distance. It is worthwhile noting here that the word Prakrit, meaning 'original', also has the meaning 'rustic', 'unpolished'. So it could be said that it was the rustic that the Buddha wanted to reach. The spiritually rustic, shall we say, or perhaps the rusted. Setting a thief to catch the thief, so to speak? In the context of Sinhala, the 'everyday language', as distinguished from scholarly and poetic (p.126), could be seen as the 'rustic usage'. Not using it, then, is clearly to violate the Buddhist ethos. So on several counts, then, Professor Gamlath's language can be said to be inappropriate. It was, I believe, Anandawardhena who reminds that 'inappropriateness ruins the taste' (anoucityam rasa bhangam). Of course, he was talking about creative writing, but don't you, dear reader, think it is equally valid in any kind of writing, particularly the scholarly? Implications for development But, if pedantry of language affected only the art, it would not be as serious had it not had implications for national development. In order to begin to explore this issue, we may want to ask a simple question what is the primary responsibility of the writer, scholarly or otherwise? To communicate would be the unequivocal answer. Effectively. Immediately. But what Professor Gamlath does is just the opposite. Consciously distance himself from the reader. Declares he boldly that his work was not intended for "those who have received no formal education" (123). He even identifies them: "... cashier [so & so] of [such and such] restaurant in Maradana, another employee of the same outfit named [so and so], young vendors on the streets and boutiques of Mahanuwara, garment workers and such other average people." (123). These are among those who have told him that they don't understand what he writes. It is abundantly clear that these cashiers of the nation are not illiterate just as clearly they do want to be part of a learning experience, of the literary world, of the national consciousness. What they were seeking surely was to overcome their handicap of not having had a high level formal education. But the Professor seeks to consciously hold back knowledge by writing in a language inaccessible to the wider reader. A clear case of guru mushti teacher hold-back, certainly un-Buddhistic, but rendered even more serious coming from one of a Marxist orientation. This is not to say that a scholar may not fall back on technical terms of the given discipline that may not be readily accessible to a reader trained in another discipline the term 'phoneme', e.g., is part of a linguist's basic vocabulary but, a physicist might tumble over it just as the linguist, with no background in science, will be baffled by 'quarks' or 'proton', the basic units of matter. But to use words for which there are simpler alternatives, is to be obscurantist. Obscurantism is malfeasance and maleficence pedantry obfuscates. Exactly! I have both wasted your time and newspaper space when I could have said what I had to say in plain English! If you had to go to a dictionary to make sure of what I just wrote, it is clear that what I have done is to muddy communication, not to facilitate it. What I have sought is to get away from you, the reader, trying to bewilder you (obfuscate), displaying a scholarship lacking in judgment (pedantry), opposing human progress and enlightenment (obscurantism), through public mischief (malfeasance), perhaps even bringing evil (maleficence) upon you. The cashiers of Sri Lanka, then, seem to be at the receiving end of all this, getting a double-whammie in fact. First, it is bad enough that they missed out on educational opportunities, even under a system of free education but now, those who have benefited from the scarce resources of the country and have been trusted with the task of disseminating knowledge are failing them a second time this is in Buddhist Sri Lanka, the preserver of the tradition of one who sought to reach out to the masses? All the cashiers were asking was for an opportunity for self-education. Imagine where our literary genius Martin Wickremasinghe and our first Prime Minister of Independent Lanka, Sir D S Senanayaka, would have been without the benefit of such self-learning! So our prof. can be said to score a failing grade by the very sloka he has quoted. Among the ten qualities of 'wise one' is dayaa 'compassion, caring... Another is being 'lovable to all'. Yet another is being 'not miserly' (lobha neti). Does an unwillingness to offer one's knowledge not being miserly? Do you see any compassion? Indeed evidence of such unwillingness of our professor to be helpful comes from another example. When asked in a class for a simpler term for a word in Kavsilumina, the student is referred to the Sorata Dictionary! And we wonder why private 'tuition mudalalis' and 'tuition shops' (kada), as he seems to lament (p.130), have mushroomed. (More to follow) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
