10-31-2006, 04:52 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>
> This is an interesting point from the perspective whether Jains and
> Buddhists should be considered a sub-sect of Hindus. I am curious
> to know if there has been any historic incidence when shaivites
> converted to Vaishnavism and the vice-versa as it happened in the
> case of Jain and Buddhist religions.
The concept of saMpradAya is much misunderstood. A lot of people,
including some members of this forum, think that a saMpradAya is a
like a sect or denomination. This is true to an extent, but a very
simplistic understanding.
Strictly speaking, a saMpradAya is a guru-SiShya lineage. The term is
most commonly applied to sannyAsI lineages (or lineages of householder
initiates in some cases) associated with specific philosophical
schools such as vedAnta. The average householder Hindu is generally
not bound by any saMpradAya.
Historically, most Hindus have followed their jaati traditions. A
jaati is not merely an endogamous ethnic group but also a cultural
group. Concepts of dharma also typically flow from parents to children
through the jaati. Historically, people looked to their own family
elders to understand dharma, instead of consulting priests or
scriptures [As an aside, this is a reason why it is very difficult to
give general answers on dharmic matters in the Hindu context. The
particular always overrides the general.]
In particular regions where a specific saMpradAya has been strong, the
local people gravitated towards that saMpradAya and gradually absorbed
some of its philosophical outlook. This is particularly true for
brahmin communities who have been traditionally engaged in studying
the veda-s and allied disciplines.
But only a small percentage of the Hindu population strictly
identifies with specific saMpradAya-s. This percentage varies across
the country, from almost zero in most of the Gangetic plain to a
significant number (my wild guess would be 25%) in states like Tamil
Nadu.
So when one talks of "conversion" from say shaivam to vaiShnavam, it
must be understood in the above context. It has always been rare for
entire communities to convert from one tradition to another. What has
been more common is for scholars from different philosophical schools
to engage in debate, with the losers accepting the views of the
victor. However, this rarely affected the traditions & religious rites
followed at the household level. It was more like a modern day person
changing his views from say communism to capitalism.
However southern India (especially TN and parts of AP and Karnataka)
have been somewhat exceptional in this regard. From the 6th century or
so, one finds the emergence, in these areas, of schools very strongly
favouring a particular devatA. This was not an entirely new
phenomenon. Such schools have existed since time immemorial. But
around this period, they emerged in a much stronger manner than
before.
So one finds, in TN and some nearby areas, that entire jaati-s have
strong affiliations with particular saMpradAya-s. But even in these
areas, these afflilations are more common amongst the brahmins than
the other jaati-s. So conversions from one tradition to another did
occur in these areas. But even here, the focus was more on the
scholarly class & the rulers, with a lot of politics thrown in. And
even in these cases, family traditions including religious rites have
largely remained the same inspite of movement across saMpradAya-s.
Hence, the saMpradAya identity has tended to remain weaker than the
jaati identity.
To a large extent, these saMpradAya concepts are true for bauddha-s
also. bauddham started off as a purely monastic tradition. There was
no such thing as a bauddha family or a bauddha community. Scholarly
people from different jaati-s, with a significant chunk (probably even
a majority) being brahmins, joined the bauddha sa~Ngha as monks. In
regions where the sa~Ngha had a strong presence they would have
influenced the local jaati-s, but by & large there was no distinction
between bauddha & non-bauddha as far as householders were concerned.
Householders continued to follow their jaati traditions irrespective
of bauddha influence. In general, bauddha influence would mean no more
than the addition of an image of the SAkyamuni to the set of images in
the household pUjA room.
[As an aside, the above should make it clear that bauddham was not a
social reform movement, unlike what many modern-day westernized
worthies say. sannyAsa by definition is a renunciation of the world,
and jaati is a wordly identity meant to provide a framework for
householders. Therefore, a sannyAsI has no jaati. As bauddham started
off as a purely monastic tradition, it did not give much importance to
jaati. However, a look at subcontinental societies where bauddham has
survived as a householder tradition clearly shows that jaati has
continued in bauddham. Sri Lanka is the classic example where jaati
has remained strong under bauddha influence for 2300 years]
Over time, with the emergence of the vajrayAna type of bauddham,
householder communities started to form in northern & eastern India.
But it was still a rather weak phenomenon, which was why bauddham
disappeared entirely when the Muslim invaders destroyed the huge
vihAra-s where the monks were concentrated. There was no householder
community with a strong & distinct bauddha identity. So when the
monastic establishment was destroyed, these people either converted to
Islam or became indistguishable from the rest of their Hindu
neighbours (from whom they had never really separated anyway).
The jaina tradition is somewhat different in the sense that it is a
very ancient tradition whose origins are obscure. The jaina monastic
establishment has always been widely dispersed (unlike the
concentrated bauddha vihAra-s) and there has long been a community of
jaina householders, most of whom have been traders. But the jaina-s
have always had a strong relationship with the other Hindu
communities, including a significant amount of intermarriage. Though
jaina muni-s are aware of their philosophical differences from the
vedic schools, the average householder jaina is not always
distinguishable from householders following the vedic tradition.
So overall, "conversion" from one saMpradAya to another has not been a
very common phenomenon, and this analysis is fairly easily extendable
to jaina-s & bauddha-s. The primary identity marker in Hindu society
(including bauddha-s & jaina-s) has always been jaati, with an overlay
of the various philosophical schools that had varying levels of
influence. The religious rites followed by households are primarily
jaati-based rather than saMpradAya-based.
In modern times, there has been an erosion of jaati traditions and
generic practices have started to emerge, but the relationship between
saMpradAya & householder religious traditions is likely to get even
weaker with time (it has never been strong anyway).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
> This is an interesting point from the perspective whether Jains and
> Buddhists should be considered a sub-sect of Hindus. I am curious
> to know if there has been any historic incidence when shaivites
> converted to Vaishnavism and the vice-versa as it happened in the
> case of Jain and Buddhist religions.
The concept of saMpradAya is much misunderstood. A lot of people,
including some members of this forum, think that a saMpradAya is a
like a sect or denomination. This is true to an extent, but a very
simplistic understanding.
Strictly speaking, a saMpradAya is a guru-SiShya lineage. The term is
most commonly applied to sannyAsI lineages (or lineages of householder
initiates in some cases) associated with specific philosophical
schools such as vedAnta. The average householder Hindu is generally
not bound by any saMpradAya.
Historically, most Hindus have followed their jaati traditions. A
jaati is not merely an endogamous ethnic group but also a cultural
group. Concepts of dharma also typically flow from parents to children
through the jaati. Historically, people looked to their own family
elders to understand dharma, instead of consulting priests or
scriptures [As an aside, this is a reason why it is very difficult to
give general answers on dharmic matters in the Hindu context. The
particular always overrides the general.]
In particular regions where a specific saMpradAya has been strong, the
local people gravitated towards that saMpradAya and gradually absorbed
some of its philosophical outlook. This is particularly true for
brahmin communities who have been traditionally engaged in studying
the veda-s and allied disciplines.
But only a small percentage of the Hindu population strictly
identifies with specific saMpradAya-s. This percentage varies across
the country, from almost zero in most of the Gangetic plain to a
significant number (my wild guess would be 25%) in states like Tamil
Nadu.
So when one talks of "conversion" from say shaivam to vaiShnavam, it
must be understood in the above context. It has always been rare for
entire communities to convert from one tradition to another. What has
been more common is for scholars from different philosophical schools
to engage in debate, with the losers accepting the views of the
victor. However, this rarely affected the traditions & religious rites
followed at the household level. It was more like a modern day person
changing his views from say communism to capitalism.
However southern India (especially TN and parts of AP and Karnataka)
have been somewhat exceptional in this regard. From the 6th century or
so, one finds the emergence, in these areas, of schools very strongly
favouring a particular devatA. This was not an entirely new
phenomenon. Such schools have existed since time immemorial. But
around this period, they emerged in a much stronger manner than
before.
So one finds, in TN and some nearby areas, that entire jaati-s have
strong affiliations with particular saMpradAya-s. But even in these
areas, these afflilations are more common amongst the brahmins than
the other jaati-s. So conversions from one tradition to another did
occur in these areas. But even here, the focus was more on the
scholarly class & the rulers, with a lot of politics thrown in. And
even in these cases, family traditions including religious rites have
largely remained the same inspite of movement across saMpradAya-s.
Hence, the saMpradAya identity has tended to remain weaker than the
jaati identity.
To a large extent, these saMpradAya concepts are true for bauddha-s
also. bauddham started off as a purely monastic tradition. There was
no such thing as a bauddha family or a bauddha community. Scholarly
people from different jaati-s, with a significant chunk (probably even
a majority) being brahmins, joined the bauddha sa~Ngha as monks. In
regions where the sa~Ngha had a strong presence they would have
influenced the local jaati-s, but by & large there was no distinction
between bauddha & non-bauddha as far as householders were concerned.
Householders continued to follow their jaati traditions irrespective
of bauddha influence. In general, bauddha influence would mean no more
than the addition of an image of the SAkyamuni to the set of images in
the household pUjA room.
[As an aside, the above should make it clear that bauddham was not a
social reform movement, unlike what many modern-day westernized
worthies say. sannyAsa by definition is a renunciation of the world,
and jaati is a wordly identity meant to provide a framework for
householders. Therefore, a sannyAsI has no jaati. As bauddham started
off as a purely monastic tradition, it did not give much importance to
jaati. However, a look at subcontinental societies where bauddham has
survived as a householder tradition clearly shows that jaati has
continued in bauddham. Sri Lanka is the classic example where jaati
has remained strong under bauddha influence for 2300 years]
Over time, with the emergence of the vajrayAna type of bauddham,
householder communities started to form in northern & eastern India.
But it was still a rather weak phenomenon, which was why bauddham
disappeared entirely when the Muslim invaders destroyed the huge
vihAra-s where the monks were concentrated. There was no householder
community with a strong & distinct bauddha identity. So when the
monastic establishment was destroyed, these people either converted to
Islam or became indistguishable from the rest of their Hindu
neighbours (from whom they had never really separated anyway).
The jaina tradition is somewhat different in the sense that it is a
very ancient tradition whose origins are obscure. The jaina monastic
establishment has always been widely dispersed (unlike the
concentrated bauddha vihAra-s) and there has long been a community of
jaina householders, most of whom have been traders. But the jaina-s
have always had a strong relationship with the other Hindu
communities, including a significant amount of intermarriage. Though
jaina muni-s are aware of their philosophical differences from the
vedic schools, the average householder jaina is not always
distinguishable from householders following the vedic tradition.
So overall, "conversion" from one saMpradAya to another has not been a
very common phenomenon, and this analysis is fairly easily extendable
to jaina-s & bauddha-s. The primary identity marker in Hindu society
(including bauddha-s & jaina-s) has always been jaati, with an overlay
of the various philosophical schools that had varying levels of
influence. The religious rites followed by households are primarily
jaati-based rather than saMpradAya-based.
In modern times, there has been an erosion of jaati traditions and
generic practices have started to emerge, but the relationship between
saMpradAya & householder religious traditions is likely to get even
weaker with time (it has never been strong anyway).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->