365bet娱乐

[Full title: Philology in the Public Sphere: The Practical Applications of Textual Criticism]

Despite their passing preoccupation with lexicons and retroflexes, sixteenth-and seventeenth-century scholars had become increasingly fascinated with the social significance of public sectarian comportment. Markers of membership in a particular sectarian community became the object of new contestation and critical inquiry, and creativity in the hermeneutic feats employed to justify the usage of these insignia rose dramatically. Take, for instance, the practice of applying the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补鈥攖hree stripes of ash鈥攖o the forehead to publicly signal one鈥檚 identity as an orthodox 艢补颈惫补.

Early modern 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s, such as Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, had adopted a line of scriptural defense for the practice of applying the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 that hinges on a striking interpretation of a verse from the 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, one that has generated as much controversy among seventeenth-century 艣腻蝉迟谤颈苍 s as among contemporary scholars:

By the power of austerity and the grace of god, the learned 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补
Knew brahman and proclaimed to the 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍 s that pure Supreme, worshipped by the company of sages.^[1]

The key term in this verse is 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍. Many contemporary translators adopt an additive approach to construing this perplexing term, rendering 鈥�ati - 腻艣谤补尘补,鈥� as 鈥渂eyond the 腻艣谤补尘补s,鈥� that is, having transcended the four stages of life.^[2] And indeed, speculation from within the Sanskrit knowledge systems seems to justify this interpretation. Advaitin theologians, beginning with 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, adopted terms such as 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍 to speak of a class of renunciants, often 箩墨惫补苍尘耻办迟补 s (those liberated while alive), who had passed beyond the strictures of the traditional social order.^[3] More recently, however, leading scholars of early 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 have discovered that the term aty腻艣谤补尘补, in its original usage, in fact is closely associated with a group of Atim膩rgic 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉.^[4] That is, 艢补颈惫补 scriptures, as early as the Ni艣v膩sam奴las奴tra (ca. fifth century c.e.), speak of two principal subsets of 艢补颈惫补 lineages: the 础迟颈尘腻谤驳补鈥攊n subsequent centuries including such groups as the 笔腻帽肠腻谤迟丑颈办补 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉, 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补蝉, and 碍腻濒腻尘耻办丑补蝉鈥攁nd the 惭补苍迟谤补尘腻谤驳补, commonly associated with 膧gamic 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 (such as the 艢补颈惫补 Siddh膩nta). Among the former, initiates are said to adopt a practice known either as the aty腻艣谤补尘补 vow (aty腻艣谤补尘补vrata) or the Great 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 vow (尘补丑腻辫腻艣耻辫补迟补惫谤补迟补), an observance that later 艢补颈惫补 exegetes understand quite rightly to involve smearing the entire body in ash (产丑补蝉尘辞诲诲丑奴濒补苍补).

Among Western Indologists, the recovery of this 艢补颈惫补 sense of aty腻艣谤补尘补鈥攁nd the religious sensibilities it was intended to evoke鈥攆igures among the more noteworthy discoveries of the past decades. Nevertheless, equal credit must be granted to the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 philologians of the early modern period, who themselves had recovered the same historical sense of the term 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍, which had fallen into ambiguity for earlier Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补 philosophers. Having amassed 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic, Pur膩峁噄c, and 膧gamic citations that contained the troubling term, 厂尘腻谤迟补 polemicists ascertained correctly that the aty腻艣谤补尘补vrata and 辫腻艣耻辫补迟补惫谤补迟补 were synonymous and involved the practice of smearing the body with ash. By the seventeenth century, however, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his colleagues had added a polemical twist to their interpretation of this problematic term, claiming that aty腻艣谤补尘补 literally referred not to the smearing of ash but, more specifically, to the prescription to apply the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 to the forehead, the 艢补颈惫补 sectarian tilaka. By doing so, they had essentially uncovered a Vaidika proof text for a distinctively 艢补颈惫补 sectarian practice鈥攁 practice, in fact, that publicly demarcated one鈥檚 identity as an orthodox 艢补颈惫补.

狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 explores the matter in some detail in his 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补, his unpublished manual of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual, outlining the scriptural injunctions for the application of the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补:

In the 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, it is revealed:

鈥淏y the power of austerity and the grace of god, the learned 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补,
knower of brahman, proclaimed to the 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍 s that pure Supreme, enjoyed by the company of sages.鈥�^[5]

On this matter, at the end of the procedure for applying the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 is revealed the following statement in the Brahmottarakha峁囜笉a:

鈥淪upreme gnosis, capable of severing transmigration, belongs to those alone
By whom was practiced long ago this aty腻艣谤补尘补 dharma.

The fact that the bearing of the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 is established here to be expressed by the term aty腻艣谤补尘补 is corroborated by the following praise of instruction in the knowledge of brahman in the K膩l膩gnirudropani峁�ad, which establishes [the bearing of the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补] as a prerequisite knowledge of brahman:

鈥淗e should make three straight lines: this 艣腻尘产丑补惫补 vow is described by the knowers of the Veda in all the Vedas. One who desires liberation should practice it for the cessation of rebirth. Whichever learned celibate student, householder, forest dweller, or ascetic makes such a 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 with ash is purified of all unforgivable sins.鈥�^[6]

痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补蝉, as one might imagine, were by no means satisfied with this line of reasoning and took great pains to provide alternative explanations.

Take, for instance, the celebrated 惭腻诲丑惫补 scholar Vijay墨ndra 罢墨谤迟丑补, who, in his 罢耻谤墨测补艣颈惫补办丑补峁囜笉补苍补, expresses some trepidation regarding the prevalent 艢补颈惫补 interpretation of the term aty腻艣谤补尘补:

鈥淪ome people, however, accepting the meaning of the term aty腻艣谤补尘补 as stated in the 蝉尘峁泃颈 s on the force of contextualization and so forth, say that it refers to the eligibility for a certain kind of knowledge. Suffice it to say that we will explain when deliberating on the statement from the Atharva艣iras why smearing with ash, bearing the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补, and so forth do not constitute a prerequisite for the knowledge of brahman.鈥�^[7]

Vijay墨ndra 罢墨谤迟丑补, it appears, was well aware of the ground 艢补颈惫补s sought to gain through their philological endeavors, and had taken steps to counter their claims. By his use of the phrase 辫谤补办补谤补峁嚹乨颈惫补艣腻迟 (on the force of contextualization and so forth), Vijay墨ndra again appears to prefigure N膩r膩ya峁嚹乧膩rya in expressing a distrust of 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补 strategies of interpretation, which, as N膩r膩ya峁嚹乧膩rya had claimed, facilitate counterintuitive鈥攁nd often simply unreasonable鈥攃onstruals of scripture. By way of reply, he proposes a much more conservative interpretation, founded not on historical precedent but on the strictures of 笔腻峁噄苍颈an grammar. Compounded from the prefix ati and a well-known word for the Brahminical stages of life, a term such as aty腻艣谤补尘补, according to Vijay墨ndra, cannot plausibly be interpreted in a sense so distant from its historical etymological derivation.

Drawing on 笔腻峁噄苍颈鈥檚 厂奴迟谤补 1.04.095 (atir atikrama峁噀), he maintains that,

鈥渋n the Kaivalya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, the word aty腻艣谤补尘补 as well, appearing at the beginning and end of the text, ought reasonably to be construed as referring to the stage of life of the ascetic. It is not reasonable to hope to prove on the strength of even this term that the Kaivalya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 is about 艢颈惫补.鈥�^[8]

And yet Vijay墨ndra鈥檚 words of caution did little to restrain the philological inquiry of his 艢补颈惫补 opponents; in fact, 艢补颈惫补s of the next generation would take their inquiry a step further, launching a comprehensive inquiry into the historical attestations of the term aty腻艣谤补尘补 in 艣谤耻迟颈 and Pur膩峁噄c narrative. Echoing 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 own position, a remarkably similar argument surfaces perhaps a century later in a lengthy polemical tome titled the 莫艣补惫颈濒腻蝉补, composed by one 鈥淎ppayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥�^[9] 鈥攎ost likely not identical with the sixteenth-century polymath of the same name. The author of the 莫艣补惫颈濒腻蝉补 presents an exhaustive study of the relevant scriptures,^[10] establishing from his encyclopedic array of citations that the terms aty腻艣谤补尘补vrata, 辫腻艣耻辫补迟补惫谤补迟补, and 艣颈谤辞惫谤补迟补 are synonymous, and that they refer to the practice of applying the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 as well as to smearing the body with ash. Building on this philological apparatus, however, he takes his conclusion a step further. This Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 arrives at the conclusion that those who wish to know brahman are not only enjoined explicitly by scripture to apply the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 but also expressly forbidden from applying any other sectarian insignia, including the 奴谤诲丑惫补辫耻峁囜笉谤补, the 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 sectarian tilaka.

As our author writes,

鈥淭hus, because the vow of the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 and of the smearing with ash literally prohibits bearing another 辫耻峁囜笉谤补, the numerous other statements prohibiting the 奴谤诲丑惫补辫耻峁囜笉谤补 based on this, found in the 痴补艣颈峁ａ弓丑补 and Li峁単a 笔耻谤腻峁嘺s, the 笔补谤腻艣补谤补 鲍辫补辫耻谤腻峁嘺, the 惭腻苍补惫补[诲丑补谤尘补艣腻蝉迟谤补], the S奴tasa峁僪it膩, and the 厂腻尘产补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺 are not written here so as to avoid prolixity.鈥�^[11]

Among the verses 鈥淎ppayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥� cites in defense of his argument is an intriguing narrative episode he unearthed from the 碍奴谤尘补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺, in which the sage 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补 himself鈥攏otorious from the original attestation of 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍 in the 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, described here as the 鈥湶巡钩竽灞枘迮泆pata鈥�^[12] 鈥攁rrives wearing only a loincloth, his body smeared with ash, and instructs King 厂耻艣墨濒补 in the practice of the aty腻艣谤补尘补 vow, which the texts equate with the 鈥渆ntire essence of the Vedas.鈥�^[13] From this 碍奴谤尘补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺 passage, our author concludes the 鈥湵誓迮洺鼙璨钩俨光�� and aty腻艣谤补尘补 vow refer commonly to a single practice that involves the bearing of ash, mandated by a veritable constellation of reliable scriptures and incumbent on members of all castes who wish to attain knowledge of brahman.^[14] While partisan in the extreme, Appayya鈥檚 argument speaks to a genuine philological perseverance鈥攁 willingness to return straight to the sources to uncover the roots of sectarian practice in his own day and age. This, in fact, is precisely what he discovered. The 碍奴谤尘补 passage in question provides us with a remnant of a Vedicized 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 lineage that derived its own authority from the sage 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补, an ideal figurehead, as the Vaidika scripture named for him provides a genuine defense of 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘.^[15] As a member of a much later movement of Vaidika 艢补颈惫补s, 鈥淎ppayya鈥� came to this same conclusion, marshaling his text-critical analysis in support of the polemical ambitions of his contemporary sectarian community.

Bearing the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补, in other words, was fashioned as a foundational precept of public orthopraxy through the textual inquiries of public philologians. But how would this precept apply to those who had adopted esoteric religious commitments? In other words, among orthoprax 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s, what mark ought a practitioner of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 to display? 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 addresses the issue at some length in his 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补:

Now one might object: 鈥淏earing the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 applies to worshippers of 艢颈惫补, but devotees of the goddess ought not to apply ashes.... If such is argued, then because the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 of ash is prescribed as a component of the worship of 艢颈惫补 along with the goddess [厂腻尘产补] in the Kaivalyopani峁�ad,... and since I myself will establish in the fourth chapter that 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 practitioners are in fact worshippers of 艢颈惫补 along with the goddess, it is absolutely necessary for them as well to apply the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补.

Or, if one were to ask as well whether the restriction to smear one鈥檚 body with sandalwood paste ought to be accepted by devotees of the goddess, I say no. For as is well known, one ought to bear whatever signifiers are appropriate to the deity one worships, since the essence of the Tantras enjoins these things: the bearing of garlands of forest flowers and such by 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补蝉, and the bearing of 谤耻诲谤腻办峁�a s by 艢补颈惫补s. This principle is known in worldly affairs also, as among the retinue of the king and so forth. Thus, in this instance, devotees of the goddess, known as the 鈥淥rnamented Queen,鈥� auspicious by her full ornamentation of yellow sandal paste, ought also to generally adopt such ornamental attire; this is the essence of the 艢腻办迟补 Tantras.... And this attire should not be understood as forbidden to 厂尘腻谤迟补s.

But, as it is stated in the 碍奴谤尘补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺,... attire that unsettles worldly people is forbidden. Whatever attire upsets worldly people in a particular place or at a particular time ought to be abandoned, accepting [attire] insofar as it serves the welfare of the world. Thus, in a region populated by simpletons, one should evoke all of this only mentally鈥攐ne need not show anything externally. It is with this very intention that the 尝补濒颈迟辞辫腻办丑测腻苍补 stated, 鈥淥r, mentally visualized ornamentation.鈥�^[16]

狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 concern for public appearances in this passage is striking, and all the more so as he appears to be dialoguing directly with an actual group of 艢腻办迟补 contemporaries who were somewhat more exclusivist in their interpretation of 艢腻办迟补 scripture and, certainly, more overt in their public proclamation of identity. As 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 himself, on the other hand, is both a devoted practitioner of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 and a staunchly orthodox 艢补颈惫补 Brahmin, his aim is to synthesize the two categories to whatever extent possible both in theory and practice. Not only does he believe that 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 practitioners ought to comport themselves purely as orthodox 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s in public, bearing only the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补 and adopting no other external display of their identity, but he also goes so far as to make the categorical claim that 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 practitioners simply are 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s by definition.

The 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补, as it turns out, was by no means the only sectarian marker that had become an issue of broad public contestation. A similar controversy was generated by the practice of bearing of the signs of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 branded on one鈥檚 body, or 迟补辫迟补尘耻诲谤腻诲丑补谤补峁嘺, a practice adopted by the 惭腻诲丑惫补 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补蝉 that garnered extensive critique both from other 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 traditions and from 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s. These branded insignia generated a widespread public controversy, as theologians from each camp returned to their scriptures to interrogate the legitimacy of the practice of branding among orthodox, Vedic Hindus. In fact, even Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 himself is reputed to have authored a work titled the 罢补辫迟补尘耻诲谤腻办丑补峁囜笉补苍补, 鈥淭he Demolition of Branded Insignia.鈥� One particularly poignant diatribe on the issue was composed by a certain Vijayar膩m膩rya, titled the 笔腻办丑补峁囜笉补肠补辫别峁璱办腻 (The slap in the face of heretics).

It does not take much perusal to glean something of the vehemence of his stance:

And thus, through recourse to groundless statements that contradict scripture, fabricated by the 惭腻诲丑惫补s and others and having the mere semblance of Vedic orthodoxy, fools practice the bearing of branded insignia, their minds deluded by the impressions produced by great sins amassed in previous births. Thus they attain a low caste status; at the end of the cosmic dissolution they will enjoy all the fruits of hell.

And that is precisely why there are a thousand statements existing in various locations that prohibit those with Vedic eligibility to bear branded insignia and prescribe an expiation for bearing them, indicating that hell, and so forth, will result when one fails to perform this expiation. Among these, we exemplify only a sampling.^[17]

In short, abstract as they may be on paper, or palm leaf, these philological projects hold major implications for our understanding of the public religious culture of Hindu sectarianism. Whether branded on the arm or smeared on the forehead with ash, sectarian insignia were no small matter for the many southern theologians who were committed to advertising the Vaidika orthodoxy of their chosen sect in public circles. These tilaka s, borne directly on the foreheads of sectarian affiliates, delineate a polarized public space in which dialogical partners move not as equals but as embodied signifiers of their religious identity. Bodily displays of identity鈥攁nd their associated performances鈥擨 suggest, served as a primary point of transference between the realms of theology, as a strictly textual enterprise, and religious culture as enacted by practitioners. As a result, the vast upsurge in interest we witness in philological topics, such as the textual foundations of the tilaka and branding, confront us with the potential ability of theological debate to shift the terrain of religious community formations. Far from constructing a valueneutral space of public exchange, the philological inquiries of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s and their rivals visibly demarcated the boundaries between competing sectarian communities. Individuals could instantly distinguish coreligionists from outsiders on the basis of such insignia, which served as indexical signs of one鈥檚 community of affiliation. As a result, echoes of the exchanges between 艢补颈惫补 and 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 scholars have left an indelible impression on the religious landscape of south India, fostering a visual demarcation of religious difference.

What, then, is new鈥攐r, one might even say, modern鈥攁bout the sectarian marks borne by 艢补颈惫补s and 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补蝉 in the seventeenth century? In fact, such insignia were used to mark the bodies of practitioners of both Brahminical Hinduism and non-Brahminical religions from the earliest stages of Indian history. The 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补, for instance, as our 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s came to recognize, descends directly from the practices of early 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 ascetics, 艢补颈惫补 renunciants whose ash-covered limbs were instantly emblematic of their social identity. And yet a closer look reveals a crucial shift in the function of bearing ash between the height of 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 asceticism in the early first millennium and the seventeenth century. As renunciants, 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 ascetics engaged in a soteriological practice aimed at liberating the individual soul from the chains of human existence, and the bearing of ash itself was among the tools designed to sever those chains. 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉 chose to bathe in ash and, likewise, to feign insanity, engaging in lewd displays in public places, not to inform outsiders of their identity, but to cultivate a particular state of being divorced from social reality, which, they believed, would lead directly to liberation. In fact, more advanced 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 practitioners were instructed to conceal the signs used to mark the body in order to maintain their internal state without the support of external signifiers. What 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 were engaging in, then, was a process of mimesis鈥攐f first imitating, then internalizing the characteristic features of the god 艢颈惫补 in order to transform the initiate into 艢颈惫补 himself.

In the Western context, a similar process has been discussed by the theorist Giorgio Agamben, who locates a direct parallel between the outward appearance of early Christian monastics and their spiritual state of being, both represented by the word habitus. Agamben writes,

鈥淭o inhabit together thus meant for the monks to share, not simply a place or a style of dress, but first of all a habitus. The monk is in this sense a man who lives in the mode of 鈥榠nhabiting,鈥� according to a rule and a form of life. It is certain, nevertheless, that cenoby represents the attempt to make habit and form of life coincide in an absolute and total habitus, in which it would not be possible to distinguish between dress and way of life.鈥�⁷⁸

Much like the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉, early Christian monks, according to Agamben, adopted external signifiers, such as the habit, to integrate their way of life with their external appearance. The result, for both, was a personal transformation predicated upon their embodiment, quite literally, of a system of values. In subsequent traditions, however, such as the Franciscan community, theologians began to distinguish between the rules of monastic life, strictures that were meant to be obeyed, and the way of life or inner disposition cultivated as a component of monastic practice. It is this conceptual distinction, Agamben argues, between one鈥檚 chosen way of life and the rules one follows in public that laid the foundation for the emergence, in the Western tradition, of the idea of public space. This shared public space, in Enlightenment Europe, came to be governed by a common set of rules, adhered to by all participants regardless of their inner convictions. In the Hindu context, early 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 theologians would have found such a concept completely antithetical to the aims of their soteriological practice. And yet this idea of public space is not so distant from the religious public that seventeenth-century 艢补颈惫补 theologians aimed to cultivate through their public theology.

In essence, there was something distinctly new about the role that sectarian markers, such as the tilaka, played in defining the boundaries of public space. Unlike in the European case, however, we can speak most accurately not of a public sphere but of publics in the plural, as theologians of each community took initiative in reshaping the rules that governed public engagement of devotees and their interactions with those outside the tradition. With this distinction in mind, we begin to find a resolution to the contrast with which we began the present chapter: namely, the bifurcation of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 religious commitments, privately a devotee of the goddess, publicly a proponent of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 orthodoxy. To be a practitioner of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 had little impact on the public comportment of an orthodox 艢补颈惫补 Hindu, in the mind of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 theologians such as 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补. One could bear the 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补, the 艢补颈惫补 tilaka, in public while maintaining one鈥檚 personal devotion to the goddess as foundational to one鈥檚 sense of religious identity.

But if the public theology of the seventeenth century was in fact something new, was it also in any meaningful sense modern? The religious publics shaped by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his colleagues are just that鈥攔eligiously inflected public spaces defined almost exclusively by practices most scholars would consider decidedly religious in nature. In the canons of classical theory, however, modernity is habitually associated with a teleological trajectory of secularization, such that the terms public and secular have become prescriptively equated with each other in Western discourse. Even in more recent years, theorists have attempted to define the singularity of modernity, epitomized by the European Enlightenment, as founded upon the limitation of religion in public space. Take, for instance, the work of Charles Taylor (2007), who contends that 鈥渁lmost everyone鈥� would characterize our moment in time as a fundamentally secular age, regardless of one鈥檚 geographical and cultural point of reference. The secularity of a society, Taylor argues, may imply a virtual evacuation of religion from public space; or in some cases, it may imply the establishment of a socially sanctioned option to eschew belief in a higher power or participation in religious ritual, an option exercised by a significant percent of the population. And yet in the context of early modern India, as well as India today, the character and function of public space diverges sharply from either of these criteria.

In the post-Enlightenment Western world, an individual is said to engage with the larger social world as an unmarked citizen, a position of agency unaltered by the individual鈥檚 identity, whether social, cultural, or religious. While this concept of the universal individual has rightly come under fire by Western theorists in recent decades, it is safe to say that, in India, one typically engages with society not as an unmarked but as a marked citizen, qualified by features of caste, gender, regional, and religious identity. In south India, by wearing a 艢补颈惫补 tilaka, a person visibly marks himself as a participant in a certain religious public, as one who is likely to frequent certain temples, observe certain festivals, and accept the authority of certain sacred texts. It tells us little, however, about other aspects of his religious identity, aspects that may prove more integral to understanding his conception of the world or the experience of the divine he professes. It tells us little about the personal ritual practices he has adopted to structure his daily life, or about the saints or deities with whom he cultivates a particular relationship. In the case of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, his public appearance would tell us nothing about his devotional relationship with his preceptor, G墨rv膩峁噀ndra 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, or about the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 Tantric ritual he practiced to bring about a union with the divine in the form of the goddess 尝补濒颈迟腻 罢谤颈辫耻谤补蝉耻苍诲补谤墨.

Thus, while themselves cultivating a particular devotional experience, theologians such as 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 worked in public circles to constitute the boundaries of a community of marked individuals: 艢补颈惫补s in public, but very possibly something else in the privacy of their homes. What, then, do scholars of religion have to gain by understanding this layering of public and private religion, a key feature of Hindu religious identity since the early modern centuries? These religious publics, shaped by sectarian Hindu communities, point to an important qualification for our efforts to define Hinduism as a unitary religion. By examining the emergence of the distinct religious publics of early modern south India, I aim to demonstrate that in a fundamental sense, Hinduism has not been homologized. With its multiple religious publics coexisting in the same geographic space, and with its division between public and private modes of religiosity, Hinduism is a religion structured around diversity and bifurcated identities. In modern Indian society, these multiple religious publics make room for difference not by erasing religion in the public sphere but by publicizing it, so to speak, to facilitate the coexistence of diverse realities. The 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 tradition, in short, epitomizes a popular adage, circulated for centuries, that encapsulates the multilayered experience of Hindu religious identity: 鈥淎 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 in public, a 艢补颈惫补 in the home, a 艢腻办迟补 in the heart鈥�.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

tapa岣�prabh膩v膩d devapras膩d膩c ca brahma ha 艣vet膩艣vataro 鈥榯ha 惫颈诲惫腻苍 | 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈产丑测补岣� 辫补谤补尘补峁� 辫补惫颈迟谤补峁� prov膩ca samyag峁涐梗isa峁僩haju峁ａ弓am || (艢惫别迟鲍辫 6.21)

[2]:

For instance, Patrick Olivelle (1996, 265) translates the verse in question as follows: 鈥淏y the power of his austerities and by the grace of God, the wise 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补 first came to know brahman and then proclaimed it to those who had passed beyond their order of life as the highest means to purification that brings delight to the company of seers.鈥�

[3]:

See Olivelle (1993, 222鈥�234), for a thorough discussion of the concept of transcending the var峁嚹迮洶�补尘�� system in Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补. The term 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍 itself rarely occurs in these Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补 sources, although a handful of intriguing usages occur in the work of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 himself, who does interpret the term as 鈥渙ne who has transcended the 腻艣谤补尘补 s.鈥� Other theologians, whom Olivelle cites, often use alternative terms such as 补迟颈惫补谤峁嚹伵况补尘颈苍, a word that itself reveals the exegetical work it has been poised to accomplish in its modification from the original. We can observe that, by the time of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 顿别艣颈办补, opponents of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补s had begun to return to the original term 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈苍, advancing the interpretation of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, astonishingly, in order to counter his 艢补颈惫补 interlocutors who had recovered an understanding of word鈥檚 original meaning.

[4]:

On the history of the terms 础迟颈尘腻谤驳补 and 惭补苍迟谤补尘腻谤驳补, and on the attested usages of the term aty腻艣谤补尘补vrata, see Alexis Sanderson (2006, 156鈥�164). The Ni艣v膩sam奴la, as well as the Svacchanda Tantra, employ a model in which five principal streams of religious practice emerge from the five faces of 艢颈惫补: in graded hierarchy from lowest to highest, the Laukika, Vaidika, 膧诲丑测腻迟尘颈办补 (i.e., 厂腻峁僰丑测补 and Yoga), 础迟颈尘腻谤驳补, and 惭补苍迟谤补尘腻谤驳补.

[5]:

As is noted in the Sanskrit original below, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 treatment of this verse preserves a variant reading from the one cited above.

[6]:

艣vet膩艣vataropani峁�adi 艣r奴yate鈥攖apa岣�prabh膩v膩d devapras膩d膩c ca b rahmavic chvet膩艣va-taro 鈥榯ha 惫颈诲惫腻苍 | 补迟测腻艣谤补尘颈产丑测补岣� 辫补谤补尘补峁� 辫补惫颈迟谤补峁� prov膩ca samyag峁涐梗isa峁僩haju峁ａ弓am || iti. tatra 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补vidh膩n膩nte 艣r奴yam膩峁噀鈥�ayam aty膩艣ramo dharmo yai岣� sam膩carita岣� 辫耻谤腻 | e峁Ｄ乵 eva 辫补谤补峁� 箩帽腻苍补峁� sa峁僺膩rachedak膩ra峁嘺m || iti brahmottarakha峁囜笉avacanen膩ty膩艣r ama艣abdav膩cyatay膩 蝉颈诲诲丑补峁� 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补dh膩ra峁嘺m an奴dya brahmavidyopade艣ak墨rtanena tad 耻办迟补峁� 产谤补丑尘补惫颈诲测腻峁単补迟惫补蝉颈诲诲丑补耻鈥�tiryak tisro 谤别办丑腻岣� prakurv墨ta vratam etac ch膩mbhava峁� sarvavede峁�u vedav膩dibhir uktam. tatsam膩caren mumuk峁�ur apunarbhav膩ya. yad etat 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补峁� 产丑补蝉尘补苍腻 karoti yo 惫颈诲惫腻苍 产谤补丑尘补肠腻谤墨 驳峁沨墨 v膩naprastho yatir v膩 samastamah膩p膩takopap膩takebhya岣� p奴to bhavat墨ti.

[7]:

kecit tu sm峁泃yuktar墨ty膩 aty腻艣谤补尘补艣abd膩rtham a峁単墨k峁泃ya tatsthasya prakara峁嚹乨iva艣膩d vidy膩vi艣e峁�e 鈥榙hik膩ram 膩hu岣�. yath膩 ca 产丑补蝉尘辞诲诲丑奴濒补苍补迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补dh膩ra峁嚹乨墨n膩峁� na brahmavidy膩m膩tr膩峁単atva峁� tath膩 鈥榯harva艣irov膩kyavic膩re vak峁�y膩ma ity alam. 罢耻谤墨测补艣颈惫补办丑补峁囜笉补苍补, pg. 53.

[8]:

kaivalya艣rut膩v upakramopasa峁僪膩ragat膩ty膩艣rami艣abdo 鈥榩i yaty腻艣谤补尘补para eva yukta iti na tadbalen膩pi kaivalya艣rute岣� prasiddha艣ivaparatv膩艣膩yukt膩. su岣� p奴j膩y膩m atir atikrama峁噀 ca iti hi p膩峁噄nis奴tram. 罢耻谤墨测补艣颈惫补办丑补峁囜笉补苍补, pgs. 52鈥�53.

[9]:

This work (see 莫艣补惫颈濒腻蝉补, TR. No. 291) is traditionally ascribed to one 鈥淎ppayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补鈥� but is not generally accepted as one of the works of the sixteenth-century polymath. It is certainly possible that the text was composed by one of his descendants, many of whom adopted the same title as their nom de plume.

[10]:

Sources cited include the Atharva艣iras, 艢惫别迟腻艣惫补迟补谤补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, K膩l膩gnirudropani峁�ad, Mu峁囜笉aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, Kaivalya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, 碍奴谤尘补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺, and numerous others.

[11]:

eva峁� tripu峁囜笉roddh奴lanavratena arth膩d eva pu峁囜笉r膩ntarani峁�edh膩t tanm奴lak膩ni ca 奴谤诲丑惫补 辫耻峁囜笉谤补ni峁�edhakav膩ky膩ni 惫腻蝉颈峁ａ弓丑补-lai峁単apar膩艣aropa辫耻谤腻峁嘺-m膩nava-s奴tasa峁僪it膩-s膩 mba辫耻谤腻峁嚹乨i峁�u bahutar膩峁噄 vistarabhay膩n na likhit膩ni. 莫艣补惫颈濒腻蝉补, fol. 385.

[12]:

The term 惭补丑腻辫腻 艣 upata in early 艢补颈惫补 often refers to practitioners of the 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补 lineage or, in this instance, may distinguish the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉 in question from the L膩kul墨艣a 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉. Because of the Vedicized inflection in this passage, it is not likely that this is in fact a 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补 source. See for instance Sanderson (1991, 3). The term appears in 艢补颈惫补 sources as early as the Ni艣v膩sam奴la.

[13]:

ath膩sminn antare 鈥榩a艣yan sam膩y膩nta峁� mah膩munim | 艣vet膩艣vataran膩m膩na峁� mah膩p膩艣upatottamam || bhasmasandigdhasarv膩峁単akaup墨n膩c ch膩dan膩nvitam | tapa s膩kar峁�it膩tm膩na峁� 艣uddhayaj帽opav墨tinam || 艣i峁�yatve pratijagr膩ha tapas膩k峁Ｄ�峁嘺kalma峁�a峁� | so 鈥榥ug峁沨ya ca 谤腻箩腻苍补峁� 蝉耻艣墨濒补峁� 艣墨lasa峁儁utam || [emended from 艣颈濒补峁� sa峁儁utam] s膩ny膩sika峁� 惫颈诲丑颈峁� 办峁泃蝉苍补峁� 办腻谤补测颈迟惫腻 惫颈肠补办峁�a峁嘺岣� | dadau tadai艣vara峁� 箩帽腻苍补峁� sva艣膩kh膩vihita峁� vratam || a艣e峁�avedas膩ra峁� tat pa艣up膩艣avimocanam | aty腻艣谤补尘补m iti 办丑测腻迟补峁� brahm膩dibhir anu峁ａ弓hitam || (莫艣补惫颈濒腻蝉补, pg. 379). I cite here the readings of the author of the 莫艣补惫颈濒腻蝉补, rather than those of any published edition of the 碍奴谤尘补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺. The passage in question is KP 1.13.31鈥�38.

[14]:

The passage in question is slightly corrupted, but the sense is clear: bhasmadh膩ra峁嘺sya 辫耻谤腻峁嚹乥hipretatv膩d aty腻艣谤补尘补辫腻艣耻辫补迟补惫谤补迟补yo岣� sam膩naprayogatv膩vagam膩d ekaphal膩vacchinnaikaprayogasa峁僢andhino brahmavidy膩dhik膩r墨 phalayor 尘耻峁囜笉补办补-kaivalyav膩ky膩bhy膩峁� pratyabhij帽膩n膩n奴峁囜笉akaivaly膩tharva艣ira岣ヅ泇et膩艣vatarak膩l膩gnirudropani峁�advihit膩n膩峁� 艣颈谤辞惫谤补迟补辫腻艣耻辫补迟补惫谤补迟补-aty腻艣谤补尘补vrat膩n膩m ekatvam avagamyate. I suggest emending it to: brahmavidy膩dhik膩ritvaphalayo岣�, and pratyabhij帽膩n膩峁� 尘耻峁囜笉补办补vaily膩tharva艣ira岣�-.

[15]:

This 碍奴谤尘补 笔耻谤腻峁嘺 passage has been discussed by Mark Dyczkowski (1989, 24) as evidence for an early Vedic lineage of 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补蝉 who opposed themselves to more antinomian traditions.

[16]:

nanu bhavet tv etat 迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补dh膩ra峁嘺峁� 艣ivop膩sak膩n膩m. ambikop膩sak膩n膩峁� tu neda峁� bhasmadh膩ra峁嘺峁� kartavyam.... iti ced ucyate kaivalyopani峁�adi.... iti s膩mbavidy膩峁単atvena bhasma迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补vidh膩n膩t, 艣r墨vidyop膩sak膩n膩峁� ca s膩mba艣ivop膩sakatvasy膩sm膩bhir eva caturthaparicchede 鈥榩y avasth膩payi峁�yam膩峁嘺tvena te峁Ｄ乵 apy 膩va艣yakam eva bhasma迟谤颈辫耻峁囜笉谤补dh膩ra峁嘺m.... nanv evam api kim ambikop膩sak膩n膩峁� candan膩峁単ar膩g膩diniyama 膩dara峁嚹珁a岣�, neti br奴ma岣�. tath膩 hi yo yaddevatop膩sanas tena taddevat膩l膩帽chanavat膩 bhavitavyam iti hi tantr膩峁嚹佱箖 丑峁沝补测补峁� yato vidadhaty et膩ni鈥攙ai峁ａ箛av膩n膩峁� vanam膩l膩didh膩ra峁嘺m, 艣aiv膩n膩峁� 谤耻诲谤腻办峁�adh膩ra峁嘺峁� ca. r膩jabh峁泃y膩di峁�u 肠腻测补峁� ny膩yo lok膩n膩m api vidita eva. tad iha 艣峁涐箙g膩ran膩yiketisam膩khy膩divy膩pitasakala艣峁涐箙g膩rama峁単al膩y膩 bhagavaty膩 up膩sakair api 艣峁涐箙g膩rave峁�apr膩yair bhavitavyam iti 艣膩ktatantr膩峁嚹佱箖 h峁沝ayam.... sa ca 惫别峁�a岣� smart峁沚hir ani峁�iddha eva 驳谤腻丑测补岣�. k奴rma辫耻谤腻峁噀鈥�... ity膩din膩 lokodvegakara峁� 惫别峁�a峁� 苍颈峁�e诲丑补苍迟墨迟颈. yasmin de艣e yasmin 办腻濒别 yena ve峁�e峁嘺 lok膩 udvijante tatra tatra ta峁� parityajya lokasa峁単raho y膩vat膩 bhavati t膩vad eva gr膩hyam. ata岣� p膩marabahule loke manasaiva 蝉补谤惫补峁� sa峁僢h膩van墨yam. na 办颈帽肠颈诲 产补丑颈岣� prak膩艣an墨yam. idam ev膩bhipretyokta峁� lalit膩khy膩ne鈥攕a峁僰alpabh奴峁�a峁噊 v膩p墨ti.

[17]:

eva峁� ca vaidik膩bh膩sam膩dhv膩dikalpita艣谤耻迟颈viruddhanirm奴lav膩ky膩valambanena p奴rvop膩rjitamah膩p膩pajanitasa峁僺k膩rasammohitadhiyo m奴岣峢膩s taptam奴dr膩dhara峁嘺峁� kurvant墨ty膩h膩ntyajatvam upagamyate pralay膩nte sakalanarakabhogabh膩jino bhavanti. ata eva ved膩dyadhik膩ri峁嚹佱箖 迟补辫迟补尘耻诲谤腻ni峁�edhaka峁� taddhara峁噀 pr膩ya艣cittavidh膩yaka峁� pr膩yascitt膩nanu峁ａ弓h膩ne narak膩dibodhaka峁� vacanasahasra峁� tatra tatropalabhyate tatra di峁卪膩tra峁� pradar艣ay膩ma岣� (笔腻办丑补峁囜笉补肠补辫别峁璱办腻, pg. 2). Devoted entirely to demolishing the practice of branding on the basis of scriptural precedent, the 笔腻办丑补峁囜笉补肠补辫别峁璱办腻, although preserved today in manuscripts housed in Calcutta, shows enormous influence from southern strategies of sectarian debate. As the issue of 迟补辫迟补尘耻诲谤腻 concerned southern theologians as well, it must be concluded that the author was either a southerner himself or directly influenced by formative models of sectarian debate developed in south India 78. Giorgio Agamben, The Highest Poverty, 16.