Esotericism in power

 

- Why are we here, we´re Egyptian vultures
and have no connection to esotericism in power!
- I know, brother, I know, this blogger clearly lost it!

“How public was Shaivism?” is a 2019 essay by British scholar Alexis Sanderson, apparently taken from a volume called “Tantric Communities in Context”. It´s an interesting summary of what we know about Shaivism as a state religion during the early medieval period. At first glance, the Shaiva religious traditions seem unlikely candidates to play such a role, being either “lay” and non-Brahminical, or esoteric in character. Indeed, some of the esoteric groups were extremely ascetic or downright bizarre. But as usual, nothing it what it seems in good ol´ Hindustan!

Sanderson distinguishes four distinct tradition within Shaivism, which he terms lay Shaivism, Atimarga, Mantramarga and Kulamarga. Of these, the two latter are usually considered Tantric, but the author makes the interesting point that the Mantramarga emerged from the Atimarga, and that even the Shakta element within Tantrism was originally taken over from an Atimarga group. Traditions sharply different and divergent on paper were frequently syncretized, making the boundaries less clear cut in practice. The relations between initiatory (esoteric) groups and lay groups were frequently complex, for instance when initiatory Shaivas took control of lay Shaiva institutions with the blessings of the local king. Within lay Shaivism, the Shivadharma literature is directed at a kind of “lay elite” the members of which wish to become more devout and pious. When performed by a king, Shivadharma rituals benefit not only the king personally, but the entire royal family and government, who are all said to be saved and transposed to Shiva´s heaven after death due to the monarch´s observance. Indeed, if the king organizes public spectacles while sacrificing to Shiva in a temple and showing respects to the Shaiva guru and ditto ascetics, the entire kingdom will prosper: no famine or plague will befall it, it will expand territorially, and so on. Here, there can be no doubt that Shaivism was a very public religion indeed. (I assume that the guru and the ascetics mentioned here were initiatory Shaivas who had attached themselves to public places of worship.)

Sanderson then makes an interesting excursus on the Atimarga, often considered one of the most extreme religious traditions, since its practitioners actively try to become outcasts from society, for instance by feigning madness or by seemingly doing penance for murdering a Brahmin. However, it turns out that there were actually two kinds of Atimargins: the ascetic sadhakas and the more moderate acharyas. The latter are said to acquire “infinite merit” by initiating the sadhakas, conversing with laymen, and giving them darshan (a blessing transmitted through gazing). Inscriptions from the Middle Ages prove that acharyas could own property, got married and transferred their positions to their sons, and donated resources on a non-sectarian basis to religious shrines (the sadhakas by contrast were only allowed to worship Rudra). Somnath Patan, a town holy to the Pashupata branch of the Atimarga, was ruled by king-like acharyas in charge of building fortifications and engaging in other building projects. This obviously raises all kinds of awkward questions, such as: are *all* religious traditions essentially fake?! The acharyas could also interact with the king, something forbidden to sadhakas. Sanderson mentions epigraphic evidence showing that a certain Maharaja donated land to a temple for the Mother-Goddesses established by a Pashupata acharya.

While the barking mad Atimargins thus turn out to have a moderate faction, the moderate Right Hand Path Tantrikas of the Shaiva Siddhanta school turn out to have ascetics and monasteries. Indeed, the Saiddhantikas spread throughout the Indian subcontinent precisely by initiating kings and using their lavish initiation fees to found new monasteries as sub-branches of a rapidly expanding organization. Some Saiddhantika gurus had initiated more than one monarch. This alliance with the royal power necessitated a pragmatic change in the teachings of Shaiva Siddhanta. Liberation was originally only possible for those able to regularly carry out the complex rituals associated with this form of the Mantramarga. Since kings evidently couldn´t practice in this exacting way, the doctrine was changed so that initiation itself bestowed liberation. The Tantric rituals were to be observed only by those who had the ability to do so. As if the promise of liberation after death wasn´t enough, the kings were also promised prestige and military might as additional benefits of initiation. Really, we are hard to please! It´s also interesting that while the royal initiation ritual sensu stricto was private, the celebrations surrounding it were very public indeed, making an “esoteric” form of Shaivism highly visible.

But what about the even more esoteric non-Saiddhantika forms of the Mantramarga and the Kulamarga? It turns out that even these traditions have been used by the royal power to carry out magical rituals of protection on behalf of the royal family, the state or the community. Sanderson gives a number of examples, including a medieval cult of Shaiva deities in the Khmer Empire and secretive cults of the transgressive goddess Kubjika in Nepal down to the early 21^st century. Indeed, the royal massacre in Nepal in 2001 was attributed by some traditionalists to a failure to carry out certain Tantric rituals. Indeed, even non-Shaivas such as the Atharvavedins (Vedic “priests” specializing in the Atharva Veda) coopted some Kulamarga practices, specifically mantras associated with Kali to offer kings protection in battle.

It seems esotericism isn´t always esoteric. No surprise there, tbh. Still, it could be seen as somewhat weird and perhaps even chilling that “problematic” Tantric deities are worshipped at the highest echelons of a warrior-prone royal hierarchy. With that, I close this perhaps somewhat narrow blog post.