Mapping Monastic Geographicity Or Appeasing Ghosts of Monastic Subjects1

Rarely do the same apparitions inhabit the work of modern theorists of subjectivity, politics, ethnicity, the Sanskrit cosmopolis and medieval architecture at once. However, the South Asianist historian who ponders the work of Charles Taylor, Partha Chatterjee, James Scott and Sheldon Pollock cannot help notice the apparitions of monastic subjects within each. Tamara Sears has gestured at the same apparitions by pointing to the neglected study of monasteries (mathas) associated with Saiva temples. She finds the omission intriguing on two counts. First, these monasteries were built for and by significant teachers (gurus) who were identified as repositories of vast ritual, medical and spiritual knowledge, guides to their practice and over time, themselves manifestations of divinity and vehicles of human liberation from the bondage of life and suffering. Second, these monasteries were not studied even though some of these had existed into the early twentieth century. Sears implies that two processes have occurred simultaneously. Both are epistemological. One has resulted in a continuity of colonialpostcolonial politics of recognition. The identification of a site as ‘religious’ rested on the identification of a building as a temple or a mosque. Residential sites inhabited by religious figures did not qualify for preservation. The second is the foreshortening of scholarly horizons by disappeared buildings. Modern scholars, this suggests, can only study entities and relationships contemporaneous with them and perceptible to the senses, omitting those that evade such perception or have disappeared long ago.