Chapter 14: Contours of Orthodoxy: What Was Left In, What Was Left Out

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Hinduism.

"To draw a sacred boundary is to declare what counts as truth—and what does not."

The Manuscript Curator's Dilemma

Mysore, 1880. In the royal library, pandit Krishnacharya surveys hundreds of palm-leaf manuscripts recovered from temple collections across South India. The British Resident has commissioned him to create a "definitive catalog" of Hindu sacred literature for the colonial government's ethnographic surveys. Before him lie texts spanning centuries: ancient Vedic hymns, elaborate Purāṇic narratives, philosophical commentaries, Tantric manuals, devotional songs in multiple languages, astronomical treatises, and medical handbooks.¹

Some choices seem obvious—the Ṛg Veda belongs in any catalog of Hindu scripture. But what about the Devī Māhātmyaversus the Lalitā Sahasranāma? Should he include the Tamil Tiruvāymoḻi, even though his British supervisor dismisses vernacular texts as "folk religion"? What about the Kularnava Tantra, whose sexual symbolism offends colonial sensibilities? The astronomical calculations in the Sūrya Siddhānta blend mathematical precision with mythological cosmology—science or scripture?²

As Krishnacharya works by lamplight, his decisions will influence how Hindu tradition is understood for generations. Every inclusion validates a text's sacred status; every omission consigns voices to scholarly footnotes. He embodies the eternal challenge facing any tradition without central authority: how do decentralized communities determine what counts as orthodox without formal councils or papal decrees?

His final catalog will reflect not just ancient wisdom, but the particular pressures of his historical moment—colonial expectations, reformist sensibilities, and regional loyalties. The boundaries of orthodoxy, he realizes, are always drawn by human hands, even when they claim divine authorization.

Summing Up Part III: The Expansive Middle Centuries

Part III examined Hinduism's most creative and contested period—roughly 300-1300 CE—when the tradition simultaneously expanded its boundaries and began defining its limits. Unlike the foundational era of Vedic composition or the epic consolidation, these middle centuries witnessed an explosion of new scriptures, competing authorities, and alternative orthodoxies. Yet this very creativity required new mechanisms for determining what belonged within the sacred canon and what remained at its margins.

Chapter 10 explored the Purāṇas as mythic repositories that retrofitted cosmic history with sectarian theology. These eighteen major texts, along with numerous minor ones, demonstrated remarkable editorial flexibility—incorporating local legends, regional deities, and contemporary politics into ancient narrative frameworks. The Skanda Purāṇa's growth from a core text to a massive compilation illustrates how Purāṇic editors seamlessly wove new material into traditional forms.³ Yet this same flexibility enabled exclusions: non-Hindu traditions were demonized, tribal deities were subordinated to Brahminical pantheons, and social challenges were absorbed into cosmic order. The Purāṇas' editorial success lay precisely in their ability to appear timeless while constantly adapting to new circumstances.

Chapter 11 examined how commentarial traditions transformed interpretation into innovation while claiming merely to explain ancient truths. Śaṅkara's Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya, Rāmānuja's Śrī Bhāṣya, and Madhva's Anuvyākhyāna created distinct theological schools by offering competing readings of the same foundational texts.⁴ These commentaries achieved scriptural authority in their own right, with later generations treating them as essential guides to understanding the Upaniṣads and Bhagavad Gītā. The commentarial tradition demonstrated how editorial authority could operate through interpretation rather than composition, establishing orthodoxies through pedagogy and institutional transmission.

Interlude C surfaced the systematic marginalization of women's voices within Hindu textual traditions. Despite women's central roles in ritual practice, domestic religion, and devotional poetry, their contributions were largely excluded from formal scriptural canons or filtered through male editorial frameworks. The recovery of poets like Janābāī, Akkamahādevī, and Karaikkal Ammaiyar reveals the richness of women's religious expression while highlighting the gendered mechanisms of textual exclusion.⁵ Contemporary efforts to reclaim these voices represent ongoing editorial work—expanding canonical boundaries while acknowledging historical limitations.

Chapter 12 turned to sectarian canons that challenged Vedic-Purāṇic orthodoxy through direct revelation claims. Tantric texts like the Kularnava Tantra and philosophical treatises like the Śiva Sūtras established alternative scriptural authorities based on esoteric initiation and mystical experience rather than traditional lineage.⁶ Vernacular devotional literature—from the Tamil Nālāyira Divya Prabandham to the Hindi Kabir Bījak—created regional canons that rivaled Sanskrit texts in local influence. These sectarian scriptures succeeded by either transforming mainstream practices or creating alternative centers of religious authority, demonstrating how new texts could achieve canonical status through community acceptance rather than institutional sanction.

Chapter 13 traced the integration of scientific and cosmological knowledge within Hindu sacred literature. Texts like Varāhamihira's Bṛhat Saṃhitā and the medical treatises of Caraka and Suśruta demonstrated sophisticated empirical observation while maintaining religious frameworks.⁷ This integration reflected a worldview that saw all systematic knowledge (vidyā) as sacred when pursued with proper intention. Yet the preservation of these knowledge systems depended on their successful integration with religious authority—scientific texts survived when they supported rather than challenged theological frameworks.

Contours of Orthodoxy: Defining Canon Without Councils

Hinduism's decentralized structure creates unique challenges for determining scriptural authority. Unlike Christianity's ecumenical councils or Islam's scholarly consensus (ijmā'), Hindu tradition lacks formal mechanisms for establishing universal canonicity. Yet de facto canons emerged through informal but powerful processes of selection, interpretation, and transmission.

Orthodox boundaries crystallized through multiple overlapping mechanisms. Commentary traditions established hierarchies of textual authority by determining which texts merited detailed explication. Performance contexts—temple recitation, festival celebration, pedagogical transmission—reinforced certain texts while allowing others to fade from active use. Political patronage elevated texts favored by ruling dynasties while marginalizing those associated with rival traditions or social challenges. Translation patterns, particularly into Persian during the Mughal period and English during the colonial era, further reinforced selective canons by determining which texts received wider circulation.⁸

Regional variations in orthodoxy complicate any unified picture of Hindu canonical development. Tamil Śrīvaiṣṇava communities treated the Nālāyira Divya Prabandham as equal to Vedic literature, while North Indian traditions often viewed vernacular texts as secondary. Kashmir Śaiva traditions centered on philosophical texts like the Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā, while Bengal Vaiṣṇavas emphasized devotional works like the Caitanya Caritāmṛta.⁹ These regional orthodoxies operated with considerable autonomy, creating multiple canonical boundaries rather than a single unified tradition.

Sectarian competition played crucial roles in boundary formation. Śaiva, Śākta, and Vaiṣṇava traditions promoted their distinctive texts while challenging rivals' claims to authority. The Śiva Purāṇa's subordination of Viṣṇu and the Viṣṇu Purāṇa's corresponding diminishment of Śiva reflect ongoing theological competition played out through textual editing.¹⁰ Tantric traditions faced particular scrutiny, with some texts like the Devī Māhātmya achieving broad acceptance while others remained restricted to specialized communities.

Editorial Mechanisms of Inclusion and Exclusion

The formation of Hindu orthodox boundaries operated through several interconnected filtering mechanisms. Language hierarchies privileged Sanskrit compositions over vernacular literature, creating systematic bias against regional and popular traditions. Even when vernacular texts achieved recognition—like the Tamil works of the Āḻvārs or the Hindi poetry of Kabir—they were often treated as secondary authorities requiring Sanskrit commentary for full legitimacy.¹¹

Social hierarchies reinforced textual boundaries through patterns of authorship and transmission. Brahmin male authors enjoyed presumptive authority, while texts associated with women, lower castes, or tribal communities faced higher barriers to canonical inclusion. The exclusion of Dalit religious traditions and tribal spiritual practices reflects broader patterns of social marginalization extended into textual realms. When such voices were preserved, they were often reframed as "folk traditions" rather than scriptural authorities.¹²

Doctrinal considerations created additional filters. Texts that challenged fundamental theological assumptions—strict caste hierarchies, Brahminical authority, or orthodox ritual practices—were more likely to be excluded or marginalized. The antinomian elements in some Tantric texts, the caste critiques in bhakti poetry, and the rationalist arguments in philosophical literature all faced various forms of editorial resistance.

Colonial interventions introduced new filtering mechanisms based on European Protestant assumptions about what constituted authentic religion. British orientalists like Max Müller promoted texts that emphasized philosophical monotheism while dismissing devotional polytheism and Tantric practices as "corruptions."¹³ Indian reformers like Dayānanda Sarasvatī and Rammohan Roy similarly privileged Vedic texts while critiquing Purāṇic mythology and popular practices. These colonial and reformist interventions significantly influenced modern understandings of Hindu orthodoxy.

What Was Left In, What Was Left Out

The resulting orthodox canon reflected these multiple filtering processes. Core śruti texts—the four Vedas and principal Upaniṣads—achieved universal recognition across Hindu traditions. Select smṛti works, particularly the Bhagavad Gītā, Manusmṛti, and major Purāṇas, gained widespread acceptance while maintaining regional variations in emphasis and interpretation. Philosophical commentaries, especially within the Vedānta tradition, achieved near-scriptural status through institutional transmission and scholarly authority.

Vernacular devotional literature experienced selective canonization. Tamil Vaiṣṇava poetry achieved recognition as the "Tamil Veda," while works by saints like Tukārām and Kabir gained broad acceptance in their regions. However, many vernacular traditions remained localized, lacking the institutional support necessary for broader canonical recognition. Scientific and technical literature survived when successfully integrated with religious frameworks but faced marginalization when separated from theological contexts.

Systematic exclusions reveal the boundaries of orthodox acceptance. Female-authored texts, despite their spiritual sophistication and popular appeal, remained largely outside formal canons until contemporary recovery efforts. Radical Tantric literature, particularly texts challenging conventional morality or social hierarchies, faced suppression or selective editing. Regional traditions outside major cultural centers often lacked the institutional support necessary for broader recognition. Oral traditions, despite their central role in religious transmission, were frequently dismissed as "folklore" rather than scripture.

Contemporary recovery efforts have begun expanding canonical boundaries while revealing the historical contingency of orthodox formation. Feminist scholars have reconstructed women's textual contributions; Dalit intellectuals have reclaimed excluded voices; digital archives have made obscure texts widely available.¹⁴ These developments demonstrate that canonical boundaries remain contested and evolving rather than fixed and final.

A Living Canon, Still Contested

Hindu scriptural authority continues evolving through contemporary editorial processes. Digital platforms now host previously inaccessible texts, enabling new forms of canonical formation through online communities and global access. Diaspora populations create their own practical canons through temple usage, educational curricula, and family transmission—often privileging accessible translations over traditional Sanskrit sources.¹⁵

Academic publishing reinforces certain canonical patterns while enabling recovery of marginalized voices. University anthologies typically feature established classics while specialized publications explore excluded traditions. Popular religious publishing, particularly in India, maintains traditional hierarchies while gradually incorporating previously marginalized material. Television programming, online forums, and social media create new contexts for scriptural authority that operate independently of traditional institutional controls.

Contemporary political movements continue using textual authority to support various agendas. Hindu nationalist organizations promote particular interpretations of classical texts while dismissing others as foreign corruptions. Progressive religious movements emphasize inclusive elements in Hindu literature while critiquing exclusionary passages. Environmental movements find scriptural support in cosmological texts emphasizing cosmic interconnection. These diverse appropriations demonstrate that canonical formation remains an active and contested process.

The challenges revealed in Part III continue characterizing contemporary Hindu textual culture. Tensions between diversity and authority persist as communities negotiate between honoring traditional hierarchies and embracing previously excluded voices. The relationship between devotional experience and doctrinal authority remains complex, with popular practices often diverging from scholarly interpretations. Questions about cultural authenticity and foreign influence continue affecting how communities evaluate textual authority.

Looking Ahead: Colonial Disruption and Global Transformation

Part IV will examine how colonialism, reform movements, migration, and digital technology have fundamentally transformed Hindu scriptural culture. The filtering mechanisms explored in Part III—language hierarchies, social boundaries, doctrinal criteria—face new challenges from global circulation, academic scholarship, and technological democratization. Colonial disruptions created new forms of textual authority while undermining traditional transmission systems. Reform movements attempted to purify textual traditions while inadvertently creating new orthodoxies. Contemporary globalization has enabled unprecedented access to Hindu texts while raising new questions about interpretation and authority.

The editorial processes traced through Part III established patterns that continue influencing contemporary Hindu communities worldwide. Understanding how these boundaries were historically constructed reveals their contingent rather than eternal character, opening possibilities for more inclusive and historically informed engagement with Hindu textual traditions. The middle centuries' expansion and limitation of scriptural authority demonstrates that canonical formation is always an ongoing human process, shaped by social circumstances, political pressures, and spiritual aspirations rather than timeless divine decree.

The legacy of Part III lies not just in the specific texts that achieved canonical status, but in the demonstration that sacred boundaries are always drawn by human hands—even when they claim divine authorization. This recognition can deepen rather than diminish appreciation for Hindu textual traditions by revealing the creative editorial work that shaped their preservation and transmission across centuries of social change and cultural transformation.

Notes

C.R. Srinivasa Iyengar, "The Mysore Oriental Manuscripts Library," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 15, no. 3 (1883): 387-412.
Colonial cataloging practices are analyzed in Thomas R. Trautmann, Aryans and British India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 156-189.
R.C. Hazra, Studies in the Upapurāṇas (Calcutta: Sanskrit College, 1963), 2:234-278.
Francis X. Clooney, Thinking Ritually: Rediscovering the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā of Jaimini (Vienna: De Nobili Research Library, 1990), 89-134.
Uma Chakravarti, "The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism," Social Scientist 24, no. 1-3 (1996): 62-89.
Alexis Sanderson, "The Śaiva Literature," Journal of Indological Studies 24 (2012): 1-113.
Kim Plofker, Mathematics in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 178-234.
Vasudha Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), 145-167.
Friedhelm Hardy, Viraha-Bhakti: The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion in South India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983), 234-289.
Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), 456-478.
Vasudha Narayanan, The Vernacular Veda: Revelation, Recitation, and Ritual (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 67-89.
Kancha Ilaiah, Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy(Calcutta: Samya, 1996), 123-145.
J.J. Clarke, Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and Western Thought (London: Routledge, 1997), 67-89.
Digital Library of India, "Manuscript Recovery Project," accessed November 15, 2024, https://dli.iiit.ac.in.
Steven Vertovec, The Hindu Diaspora: Comparative Patterns (London: Routledge, 2000), 134-167.