Beyond the pale in ancient India

 

Below are links to a three-part essay by Indologist Alexis Sanderson on tolerance (or the lack thereof) of various Hindu traditions. Or “Hindu” within scare quotes, since this term (and its sibling “Hinduism”) didn´t yet exist during the period covered. (As a side point, the only Indologist I´ve met in real life rejected the term “mediaeval period” when applied outside Europe and was therefore somewhat bemused by my nonchalant use of the term in matters Indic.)

Sanderson doesn´t deny that something akin to later “Hinduism” existed already at the end of the first millennium AD, although the term of course didn´t. However, he doesn´t believe that “Hinduism” is tolerant by essence. Quite the contrary: the more hardline followers of the various traditions were pretty sectarian and exclusivist. They berated the more soft line approaches for centuries. This is especially true of the Vaidikas, the followers of the classical Brahminic or Vedic religion. Jockeying for royal patronage was common between different traditions. Somewhat ironically, it was largely thanks to the politics of various state powers that religious tolerance was maintained, not just within proto-Hinduism but also towards Buddhists and Jains (which all “Hindu” traditions considered beyond the pale). Among the common people, new forms of worship and a more syncretistic approach became the norm, perhaps laying the groundwork for the united Hindu identity of later periods. I get the impression that this happened *because of* the Brahminical exclusivism of the Vaidikas, in response to which non-Brahmins (Shudras in particular) developed their own versions of “Hinduism”.

The three articles concentrate on the conflicts, perhaps because these are played down by pro-Hindu apologists. Vaidikas rejected Shaivism, Vaishnavism and other non-Vaidika traditions as entirely invalid, being based on spurious new “revelations”. Vaidikas were supposed to treat non-Vaidikas as impure, even as untouchables. The orthoprax called on kings to expel non-Vaidikas from the royal capitals. This intolerance wasn´t just directed at antinomian sects, but also at the Shaiva Siddhantas, who didn´t stray as far from Vedic orthopraxy. Meanwhile, Vaishnavas insisted on being Vaidikas, a claim repudiated by the latter, and frequently attacked the ideas of the Shaivas, despite the fact that Vaishnava and Shaiva practices were similar. The Shaivas insisted on the superiority of their own revelations, while keeping to Vaidika orthopraxy in public. (Sanderson is clearly sympathetic to the Shaivas, and the third part of his essay is solely devoted to their reasonings.)

One strategy used by Shaivas to gain influence and counter Vaidika attempts at exclusion was to convert the kings to Shaivism. The conversions seem to have been deliberately tailored to give the king as much political maneuvering room as possible, for instance by freeing him from the usual ritual obligations of a Shaiva initiate. The Shaiva kings were also allowed to uphold Vaidika social norms. Meanwhile, Shaivas were appointed to leading positions in the royal administrations. Sanderson describes an incident in medieval Kashmir during which the king banned a Shaiva Tantric sex cult, and perhaps even executed a large number of its supporters, at which other Shaivas (some of whom were presumably Left Hand Tantrikas in secret) were worried that they were next in line, which in turn gladdened the hearts of the Vaidikas. Much to the latter´s disappointment, the Kashmiri king continued patronizing the “main line” Shaivites…

An interesting contribution. 

Tolerance, Exclusivity, Inclusivity and Persecution in Indian Religion During the Mediaeval Period 

Part Two

Part Three