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.

Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh | Photo: Varun Pyasi

On 17 January, ThePrint published an article by Professor Patrick Olivelle discussing the status of temples in ancient India. Olivelle argues that Hindu rituals were primarily home-bound, and Dharmashastra literature shows a conspicuous disinterest in the idea of temples for rituals. He deepens the argument and claims that the Dharmashastras 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: lack of detailed discussions on temples in any of the Dharmashastra texts; Dharmashastras banning Vedic recitation in temples; Dharmashastras prohibiting an invitation to Devalakas, translated by the author as “ritual specialists associated with temples” during ancestral offerings; 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 Dharmashastras disrespect temples?

Olivelle makes the puzzling decision to search for the idea of temples in Dharmashastra literature. Dharmashastras are not the place to look for these details at all. They and the Grihyasutras 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 Dharmashastras.

One may argue, however, that Dharmashastras 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 Dharmashastras is a classical 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 Dharmashastras: 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. More details on the idea of temples in Indian texts and traditions are being dealt with by us in another academic paper.

Olivelle cites PV Kane’s observation – “It strikes one as somewhat strange that none of the principal gṛhya and dharma-sutras contains any procedures of consecrating an image in a temple” – and argues that this silence suggests that the Dharmashastras viewed temples with suspicion and disdain. However, what strikes us is Olivelle selectively citing Kane! Kane’s very previous sentence reads- “Though the Dharmashastras speak as shown above of images and temples, it strikes ….”. How can Dharmashastras 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.

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 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 Dharmashastras 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 Dharmashastras 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.

We would have ignored an article of this nature if written by fiction writers like Devdutt Pattanaik. However, Olivelle is a serious scholar, trained in ancient texts, and we are sure he knows how to make complete sense of an idea by looking at the texts holistically. It, therefore, makes us wonder if this is a case of deliberate misrepresentation by cherry-picking ideas and presenting half-truths to mislead the public towards a preconceived notion. Publishing an article of this nature just five days before the 22 January Pran Pratishtha ceremony at Ram temple in Ayodhya furthers our suspicion. We are hopeful that we in academia shall read ancient texts for what they are, rather than using them as tools to further any ideology.

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 Manusmriti and cannot be viewed as its meaning and significance in the first or second century CE.

Finally, the column was not written to be published just before the consecration of the temple at Ayodhya. The timing of the publication was determined by the editors and not by me. My original paper on this topic was published in 2010.

With this, ThePrint closes the discussion.

(Edited by Theres Sudeep)