Surrender to God Across Languages: Multilingual Intellectual History of Premodern India offers its readers a compelling intellectual history of self-surrender, a main soteriological doctrine in Śrīvaiṣṇavism. Within scholarly discourse, self-surrender has received relatively more attention than other aspects of Śrīvaiṣṇavism. Yet, Akepiyapornchai offers a new perspective on this topic by focusing on intellectual history and language choice through which she outlines the ‘complex interplay between interlinguistic changes and intellectual developments’ (p. 2). Bolstered by the book’s carefully selected archive, meticulous research and organisation, detailed analysis, and copious translations, Surrender to God Across Languages is also refreshingly accessible, despite the layers of complexity at the heart of the book.
The introduction lays out the theoretical framework for the study, presenting what Akepiyapornchai refers to as the ‘language sphere’, a fluid domain that goes beyond what is generally associated with the term ‘language’ and which is shaped by agents, arguments, and traditions. Two primary language spheres are introduced, namely Sanskrit and (Śrīvaiṣṇava) Manipravalam (a hybrid language that combines Sanskrit and Tamil used in Śrīvaiṣṇava writing). Central characteristics of these languages involve the strong links Sanskrit has to the soteriology of devotion (bhakti) and to the physical site of Kāñcīpuram, and those of (Śrīvaiṣṇava) Manipravalam to the soteriology of self-surrender (prapatti, śaraṇāgati, nyāsa, nikṣepa) and the physical site of Śrīraṅgam. Though Tamil is brought up throughout Surrender to God Across Languages, its main role remains within traditions and passages referenced by the Śrīvaiṣṇava agents working within the Manipravalam language sphere. The study proposes applying a ‘micro-perspective’—an investigation of ‘the intersections between authors and their contexts, texts, and ideas’—in order to eschew the ‘notion of unified religious concepts or communities’ (p. 5) and to uncover nuances that macro-level research tends to obscure. Of special significance here is the macro-perspective articulated in Sheldon Pollock’s monumental study The Language of the Gods in the World of Men (2006) and the process by which vernacular languages superseded Sanskrit in second-millennium South Asia.
The book’s four main chapters describe phases in the Śrīvaiṣṇava discourse on self-surrender. Each phase is clearly defined in the chapters’ carefully crafted minimalist titles: Formation, Systematisation, Separation, and Harmonisation.
Chapter one traces the formation of the Sanskrit and Manipravalam linguistic and doctrinal domains during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It argues that during this period the two language spheres gave rise to the two Śrīvaiṣṇava doctrines of devotion and self-surrender, respectively, and that the linguistic and doctrinal distinctions crystalised at this time influenced and conditioned subsequent generations of Śrīvaiṣṇava intellectuals. The chapter’s main focus is Rāmānuja, who established the (Śrīvaiṣṇava) philosophical system of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta (‘Nondualism of the Qualified’, p. 33), and the way he articulated this system in his Sanskrit texts (namely, Śribhāṣya, Vedārthasaṃgraha, Gītābhāṣya, and Gadyatraya). Importantly, Akepiyapornchai argues here that though the Śrīvaiṣṇava community credits Rāmānuja with being the expounder of the doctrine of self-surrender, he himself ‘regarded devotion alone as the sole soteriological doctrine’ and that self-surrender as a doctrine ‘evidently distinct from devotion, originated in the Manipravalam sphere’ (p. 35).
Chapter two details the phase in which self-surrender is first systematised as an independent alternative to devotion, focusing on Vātsya Varadaguru’s Prapannapārijāta and Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s Parantarahasyam, both authored around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The two texts are used to illustrate how the linguistic spheres shaped Śrīvaiṣṇava soteriology: Vātsya Varadaguru wrote in Sanskrit, relied on Sanskrit traditions, and modelled self-surrender on the doctrine of devotion as an alternative means for liberation. He omitted Tamil scriptures and downplayed the importance of the three secrets (i.e. the three Śrīvaiṣṇava mantras), creating a text ‘aimed at intellectuals who were not part of the community’ (p. 110). In contrast, Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai wrote in Manipravalam, employing a new genre he created (rahasyagrantha)—one that enabled him to incorporate and harmonise Sanskrit and its traditions with the Āḻvārs’ Tamil corpus as well as with Tamil—to author a text that seems to be ‘intended solely for the inner Śrīvaiṣṇava circle’ (p. 110).
Chapter three discusses a phase of distinct separation among Śrīvaiṣṇava intellectuals’ understanding of self-surrender as demonstrated through the Sanskrit Mumukṣūpāyasaṃgraha of Meghanādāri Sūri (circa early thirteenth century) and the Manipravalam Mumukṣupaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya (1205–1311). The chapter argues that each of these two Śrīvaiṣṇava intellectuals narrowed the scope of their traditions and actively contested the opposing sphere’s arguments, taking their systems of self-surrender ‘in two opposite directions’ (p. 151). Meghanādāri Sūri relied solely on Sanskrit traditions (especially the Upaniṣads) and explicitly rejected the Tamil tradition. He identified self-surrender with meditative devotion and, importantly, excluded non-twice-born (śudras) from pursuing self-surrender, conforming with ‘Rāmānuja’s Sanskrit soteriological model of devotion’ (p. 144). Piḷḷai Lokācārya prioritised Tamil sources, moving self-surrender ‘away from the Sanskrit sphere’ (p. 152). He distinguished self-surrender from devotion and did not regard self-surrender as a means but a realisation or goal, indicating that it does not have any restrictions and is, therefore, open to everyone, including śudras, despite not explicitly stating so.
Chapter four explores the last phase discussed in the book, harmonisation, through the writings of the influential Vedāntadeśika (also Veṅkaṭanātha; circa 1269–1370), the first Śrīvaiṣṇava author who worked in both linguistic spheres. Analysing his Sanskrit Nikṣeparakṣā and his Manipravalam Rahasyatrayasaram, the chapter argues that with these two treatises, Vedāntadeśika harmonised ‘the different systems of self-surrender proposed by the agents before him’ (p. 32). It further argues that rather than merging the doctrinal systems tied to the different linguistic spheres in one work, Vedāntadeśika composed two treatises, one in each language, to deal with the issues separately and in different ways.
The conclusion presents a concise summary of the main arguments presented throughout the book, highlighting the linguistic and intellectual interplay in Śrīvaiṣṇava treatises on self-surrender. The last page and a half of the conclusion (and the book) return to how the micro-perspective offered in the book challenges the macro-perspective of Pollock’s Language of the Gods. Specifically, the book ends with a brief discussion on the question of whether a micro-perspective, community-specific case study such as Akepiyapornchai’s has broader methodological applicability. Arguably, most of the studies on language and language choice in second-millennium South Asia would not have been conceived were it not for the macro-level perspective and framework offered in Pollock’s Language of the Gods. At the same time, most of these studies, including Akepiyapornchai’s, indicate a recurring issue: within the multilingual, multicultural space of second-millennium South Asia, once we shift lenses from broad to local, Pollock’s macro-perspective-derived model, with its neat chronological and ideological divisions, does not quite work. Thus, it might not be the case that we need to ask whether ‘each community or context requires its own methodology’ (p. 218, emphasis mine) but rather accept that each micro-perspective-framed research is an important step in filling in the blanks—as Akepiyapornchai’s thoughtful book beautifully demonstrates. Such studies, I believe, will play a significant role in creating a future model in which the macro- and micro-perspectives complement each other.
There are two interconnected points pertaining to the use of Pollock’s macro-perspective that I think could have been developed further. The first involves the role of the political domain and courtly culture in Language of the Gods. Pollock’s central claim is that, in the first millennium, ruling elites across South and Southeast Asia used Sanskrit exclusively to express political power. By the second millennium, he continues, Sanskrit was replaced by regional languages, in a process promoted in and by royal courts. The most persistent criticism of Language of the Gods involves its stance that religion and religious communities were not central to the process of vernacularisation, at least not initially; religious vernacularisation, according to Pollock, occurred at a later stage. While Akepiyapornchai does not agree with Pollock (see, e.g., p. 7), it is not clear whether she envisages a connection between the political and religious within the examined domain. For example, to what extent did questions of patronage figure into language choice in this specific case? The second point is that using Sanskrit and Manipravalam to ‘complicate Pollock’s (2006) dichotomy between Sanskrit and the vernacular’ (p. 216) further highlights the question of political power, vernacularisation, and vernacular language. This is because (Śrīvaiṣṇava) Manipravalam was used exclusively by Śrīvaiṣṇava intellectuals for their Śrīvaiṣṇava (read: religious) discourse, as opposed to Kerala Manipravalam, which followed a trajectory that included rising prominence in courtly settings. It remains unclear whether (Śrīvaiṣṇava) Manipravalam complicates Pollock or perhaps requires a different model. Importantly, this issue does not take away from Akepiyapornchai’s effective and convincing demonstration of the implications of language choice within the Śrīvaiṣṇava setting.
As is fitting for the book’s micro-perspective methodology, it excels in highlighting and explaining nuances, including those of philosophical argumentation, without losing the main thread of self-surrender or diluting its complexities. It is an excellent resource not only for the study of Śrīvaiṣṇavism or self-surrender but also for the study of the history of ideas and for understanding questions of language choice and its implications, in the rich settings of second-millennium South Asia.
