 |
| Credit: Andrew Currie/Street Dogs |
Below, I link to parts one and two of a three-part series by Christopher Wallis on the history and self-conception of Shaivism. (The third part is too complicated and not really about the same topic.)
One of the main points of the articles is
that “Hinduism” didn´t exist during the period we would call “the Middle Ages”.
Rather, the traditions we consider to be “within” Hinduism were separate and
distinct religions, in the same way as Buddhism and Jainism are considered to
be separate from Hinduism today. It´s well-established, of course, that
Hinduism is a colonial term from the 19th century. The term “Hindu” as
a self-designation dates to around 1400, but was used primarily to contrast the
indigenous Indian religions from Islam, and seems to have included Jainism (Buddhism
had largely disappeared from India by this time). During the Middle Ages, there
were five distinct religions in India: Shaivism (which originally included
Shaktism), Vaishnavism, Buddhism, Jainism and the Vedic or Brahmanical religion.
Shaivism was seen as a religion apart both by its opponents and its
practitioners. More interestingly still, different Shaiva schools considered
each other to be part of the same religion, even in cases where their doctrinal
differences were considerable.
Shaivism
taught unique doctrines, considered itself to be a new and higher revelation, had
a special conversion ritual, and regarded other forms of Hinduism-to-be as
inferior. Adherents of other systems couldn´t reach the Pure Universe (God or
the Divine), but only lower echelons of the cosmic hierarchy. When Shaivist and
Vedic injunctions collided, the latter were repudiated. Vedic religion was
upheld only for the sake of appearance and social stability, and its soteriological
value was believed to be nil. Indeed, real belief in the Vedic tradition was
said to drag down the seeker and hence impede his liberation. Further proof
that Shaivism was a distinct religion comes from the “Vaidikas” (Vedic practitioners)
themselves. They regarded Shaivism as inferior, outside the Vedas, impure or barbaric.
Obviously, the bad feelings were mutual, with Shaivas arguing that orthodox Vaidikas
couldn´t be liberated from the physical world.
The author
also discusses the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, arguing that it´s a late
composition, probably by the sectarian Shaiva Pashupatas, who successfully included
it in the Vedas to legitimize their own distinct doctrines. Thus, rather than
being an early source of inspiration for later Shaiva doctrines, it actually is
a sectarian Shaiva scripture projected onto a distant past. I admit I haven´t any
well-informed opinion on this matter, LOL.
No comments:
Post a Comment