Welcome Mr Sivaraman KR On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 19:28, Madras Sivaraman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you.While this goes over my head it is indeed gratifying to note > that wrong interpretation of our literature by westerners is adequately > responded to by our scholars. > > On Tue, 27 Feb, 2024, 21:40 Rajaram Krishnamurthy, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> *Don’t look for evidence of temples in Dharmashastras. They discuss >> household activities* >> >> In his column, Professor Patrick Olivelle argues Dharmashastra literature >> shows a disinterest in the idea of temples for rituals. We provide >> instances to the contrary. >> >> *VEERANARAYANA PANDURANGI* >> <https://theprint.in/author/veeranarayana-pandurangi> >> >> and >> >> *V SRINIDHI* <https://theprint.in/author/v-srinidhi> >> >> 24 February, 2024 11:38 am IST >> >> >> >> n 17 January, The Print published an article >> <https://theprint.in/opinion/theprint-purana/when-did-large-hindu-temples-come-into-being-not-before-500-ad/1926655/> >> by >> Professor Patrick Olivelle discussing the status of temples in ancient >> India. Olivelle argues that Hindu rituals were primarily home-bound, and >> Dharma shastra literature shows a conspicuous disinterest in the idea of >> temples for rituals. He deepens the argument and claims that the Dharma >> shastras were not only disinterested in but also opposed to the temple >> culture, and viewed them with low prestige. >> >> Olivelle bases his argument on four pieces of evidence: 1lack of >> detailed discussions on temples in any of the Dharma shastra texts; 2 Dharma >> shastras banning Vedic recitation in temples; 3 Dharma shastras >> prohibiting an invitation to Devalakas, translated by the author as “ritual >> specialists associated with temples” during ancestral offerings;4 and the >> temples being relegated to the periphery of activities and serving merely >> as temporary shelters for wandering ascetics. >> >> In this article, we review some of those pieces of evidence and evaluate >> whether the interpretations stand logical scrutiny. >> >> *Do Dharma shastras disrespect temples?* >> >> Olivelle makes the puzzling decision to search for the idea of temples in >> Dharma shastra literature. Dharma shastras are not the place to look for >> these details at all. They and the Grhyasutras discuss household >> activities, while the Pancharatra Agamas and the Shaiva Agamas discuss the >> idea of temples. Therefore, it is not surprising to see scant references >> to temples in Dharma shastras. >> >> One may argue, however, that Dharma shastras are older texts and hence >> looking at them would give an indication of the beliefs about temples at >> those times. Even if we agree with this logic for the sake of argument, >> what Olivelle has observed about temples in Dharma shastras is a classic >> case of reading out of context. Yes, Vishnu Smriti (30.15), as claimed >> by the author, prohibits Vedic recitation in temples. It is not Vedic >> “recitation” per se but Vedic studies. If we look at the context >> starting from 30.4, it gives a list of occasions, including days such as >> Ashtami, >> Chaturdashi; places such as a war field; and instances such as natural >> calamities. The list indicates space and time that are not conducive to >> learning texts. It is commonsensical that learning, especially of the >> Vedas, should happen in a serene environment and not in a place designated >> for people to gather for other specific purposes. There is another >> reference in the same Vishnu Smriti (30.15) that prohibits temples, >> cemeteries, and abandoned houses (69.7) as places for sleeping with a >> partner. Of course, you shouldn’t! Temples are neither classrooms nor >> bedrooms. Each place has a purpose of its own. >> >> Based on such incorrect slim evidence, Olivelle is claiming that Vishnu >> Smriti is looking at temples with suspicion and disdain. In fact, on the >> contrary, there are numerous instances where the same Vishnu Smriti >> talks about idols and temples with great reverence. The list is long and >> includes – punishment for breaking the idol (5.175), performing divine >> rituals (9.33), worshipping and taking sacred water (14.2), using as a >> witness (14.3), prescription for circumambulation (63.26), etc. It also >> states that one who constructs a temple for a deity gets to reside in the >> divine abode of that deity itself (91.10). Even cleaning the premises of >> the temple and preparing the idol for the next worship are seen as >> equivalent to donating a cow in terms of their ‘*punya’* (91.17, 91.18). >> Surprisingly, Olivelle was quick to jump to the conclusion that temples are >> seen with disdain as they were mentioned along with a cemetery. However, he >> doesn’t notice that actions around temples were not just mentioned but >> equated with the idea of *go-daan* (cow donation)! >> >> The references to temples with respect are seen in multiple other ancient >> sources, including the Vedas and Dharma shastras: Shadvimsha Brahmana >> (6.10.2), Atharva-parishishta (40.1.4-5), Shandilya Upanishad (1.5), >> Vaikhanasa Grihya Sutra (4.12), Laugakshi Grihya Sutra (18.1-2), Kaushitaki >> Grihya Sutra (1.18.1-6), Manu Smriti (9.280), Parashara Smriti (1.7), >> Yajnavalkya Smriti (2.112), and Gautama Dharmasutra (1.9.66). Even Charaka >> Samhita, Natya Shastra, and some Buddhist texts have talked about temples >> with reverence. >> >> Olivelle cites PV Kane’s observation – “It strikes one as somewhat >> strange that none of the principal Grhya and dharma-sutras contains any >> procedures of consecrating an image in a temple” – and argues that this >> silence suggests that the Dharma shastras viewed temples with suspicion and >> disdain. However, what strikes us is Olivelle selectively citing Kane! >> Kane’s very previous sentence reads- “Though the Dharma shastras speak as >> shown above of images and temples, it strikes ….”. How can Dharma shastras >> speaking about the images and temples but only being silent on the details >> of consecration suggest that they were viewed with suspicion and disdain? >> ------------------------------ >> >> *On the question of Devalaka* >> >> Let’s now address the issue of Devalaka. Yes, it is true that Devalakas >> are not to be invited for ancestral offerings. However, this is only a >> partial truth. Who exactly is a Devalaka? >> >> Olivelle in an earlier essay titled *The Temple in Sanskrit Legal >> Literature*,” in the book *Archaeology and Text: Temple in South Asia* >> accepts >> that “the meaning of the term is not altogether clear”, and claims that “it >> must refer to a Brahmin who functioned in some way as priest in a temple.” >> In fact, no Smriti defines priests in general as Devalakas. Even Puranas >> and Agamas that speak highly of temples in general, view Devalakas in ways >> that do not suit priests or temple attendants (Narada Purana 1.26.31 and >> Kamikagama Uttarabhaga 30.322). Therefore, the term does not refer to a >> priest nor does a prohibition on inviting them belittle temples. In the >> Vyakarana tradition, the term is used to refer to a person who carries an >> idol from one home to the other and makes a living out of it (Ashtadhyayi >> 5.3.99). In the Smriti tradition, the term, as explained by Kulluka Bhatta >> in his *Manvartha-Muktavali *citing *Devala Smriti*, refers to those who >> use temple resources to make a living, and NOT engage in activities only >> for ‘*dharma’*. This is similar to the idea of Bhritakadhyapakas, who >> despite doing the sacred duty of teaching, are doing it for salary, but not >> for *dharma.* This is an important distinction, which may be difficult >> to comprehend for us immersed in societies governed by modern >> economics.{commercial >> was despised in the olden age and were not respected or eulogised} >> >> In ancient Indian systems, there existed a strict boundary between what >> one can trade and what one cannot, and this kept the sanctity of >> traditions intact. The idea of knowledge, rituals, faith, and temples was >> to please the divine and acquire ‘*punya’*. Sages, teachers, and priests >> were mostly in that group and were therefore seen with reverence by >> society, which took care of them, including with an invitation for >> ancestral offerings. However, if a priest fails to abide by that >> detachment and falls for material gains, then he is called a ‘devala’ or >> ‘devalaka’, and is prohibited from being invited. >> >> We believe that the word is derived from the root word *div* and perhaps >> refers to a gambler. This is possibly what it connoted earlier, as Devalaka >> was normally counted among singers, dancers, sculptors, medical attendants >> and others. Even Bodhisattvas are said to have been born as Devalakas >> (Gandavyuhasutra sutra 35) among dancers, singers and others. >> >> In any case, as one can see, this prohibition on Devalaka surely doesn’t >> demean the value of a temple. On the contrary, it gives the temple a >> much higher place of reverence. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *On being a temporary shelter for ascetics* >> >> Olivelle’s pointing to temples serving as temporary shelters for >> wandering ascetics doesn’t prove anything either, other than creating an >> impression in the minds of the readers that temples were inconsequential >> entities. However, we have already seen the reverence shown towards them in >> the multiple texts. Moreover, an ascetic, as a person who has given up his >> home, shouldn’t sleep in a home. He was, therefore, advised to take shelter >> in a temple for a night. It is an obvious and simple assertion. We find it >> difficult to read things where none exist. >> >> In summary, the claim made by Olivelle about the position of Dharma >> shastras on temples is a complete misrepresentation. The prohibition of >> certain acts at temples was taken out of context to imply that temples are >> seen with suspicion. We have explained the context and provided instances >> to the contrary where Dharma shastras refer to temple culture with great >> reverence. We have also explained how the discussion on Devalaka was a case >> of half-truth, and how temples being shelters for ascetics was an obvious >> practical arrangement with no negative connotation. >> >> *Acharya Veeranarayana Pandurangi is a professor at the Karnataka >> Samskrta University and teaches ancient Indian religion, history and >> philosophy. V Srinidhi is an independent scholar of Indian traditions and >> holds a PhD in public policy from IIM Bangalore. Views are personal.* >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Patrick Olivelle’s response:* >> >> I want to thank Professor Veeranarayana Pandurangi and V Srinidhi for >> their thoughtful response to my column on temples. Knowledge is enhanced by >> discussion, interaction, and even debate. Ashoka said that *one becomes >> a bahushruta, learned, only by listening to others.* *So, your response >> is a significant step in this interaction, for which I thank you. If >> everyone can have calm and responsible discussions—without being >> disagreeable even when we disagree—the world would be a better place.* >> >> One thing my esteemed colleagues have failed to note is the lack of >> archaeological evidence for monumental temple buildings prior to the early >> centuries of the common era. This is important, because stray words in >> texts, such as *devagriha* and *devalaya*, can refer to any enclosed >> space for enshrining a divine image, including small shrines. That is the >> case in many of the texts the responders have listed. Yes, the Agama >> literature and the Puranas do discuss temples and temple worship. But these >> are much later texts that do not provide evidence for temples during the >> period I talk about. Even the Vishnu Smriti, which I critically edited >> in 2009, was composed in Kashmir around the seventh century CE. On the >> term *Devalaka, *Kullūka’s interpretation is given over a thousand years >> after the composition of the Manusmrithi and cannot be viewed as its >> meaning and significance in the first or second century CE. My original >> paper on this topic was published in 2010. >> >> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> KR There are always a few who write as temples but later skid to say, >> ARCHITECTURAL TEMPLES. Patrick was as hasty as a few, who rush speedily, >> where wise hesitate to step out. He did write only temple and not the >> architectural temple. And the reply by the learned was on dot. >> >> K Rajaram IRS 27224 >> >> >> >> -- >> On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust >> >> We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join >> >> Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup >> >> Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust >> >> Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions: >> https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "KeralaIyers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZop%3DwZsHSaBGOn33HG8ju6v7ws61czz2epwtW1wzm5XHjw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZop%3DwZsHSaBGOn33HG8ju6v7ws61czz2epwtW1wzm5XHjw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust > > We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join > > Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup > > Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust > > Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions: > https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "KeralaIyers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CADLnUxjTibQkkv7SriLNj%3Da2Fx96kidua395ot6Mp4jxnDbcoA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CADLnUxjTibQkkv7SriLNj%3Da2Fx96kidua395ot6Mp4jxnDbcoA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorYrhhT5TEtTuoJT0RB7YcLV%3DKfm6YAgLXWC5aSMXzg%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
