कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Source: TW

Hindudharma is akin to the Tānūnaptra Covenant of the Śruti. As the Śatapatha warns us, we must be careful about whom we admit into the Tānūnaptra as there will be a commingling of one’s desired assets with those of others which we may not like.

The questions which arise: Have we allowed the tradition in contention into the Tānūnaptra-like covenant of Hindudharma & therefore become bound to protect it? If yes, is there any clear act of betrayal of the Tānūnaptra, which would justify its ouster by us? The Tānūnaptra metaphor is a very useful way of approaching the problems, which are specific to an accretive model of religious development.

Does a member tradition betray the Tānūnaptra through the public practice of that which should be secretly/privately practiced? In light of recent controversies, it’s worthwhile exploring these questions seriously.

The question of admittance of a particular tradition into the Haindava Tānūnaptra is an objective one. Whether it is ugly or grotesque to us is irrelevant. Has it been admitted? That’s all.

Assuming that the larger tradition to which the controversial practice belongs has been admitted, it is no defence to say something like, “this practice is not tribal but Kāpālika”. Why?

Even if it was a tribal system that was admitted into the Haindava-Tānūnaptra, it would be worthy of protection.
Even if it was an “established” tradition such as Kāpālika, we have to ask if the practice was part of the original form of the admitted tradition.
Now, that question by itself is not determinative of the permissibility of the practice under the Haindava-Tānūnaptra. Have not other parties to the Tānūnaptra evolved? So, how can we make an exception for this alone?
Does the practice harm the Haindava-Tānūnaptra & other parties to the covenant? If a practice was not part of the original form of the tradition it belongs to, at the time of admittance, & constitutes a threat to the Tānūnaptra, it will be liable to be challenged.
What if the practice was part of the tradition at the time of admittance into the Haidava Tānūnaptra? This does not apply to the recent example (Gajan festival) but it’s important to consider this nonetheless. Are we obliged to defend it against non-Tānūnāptri detractors?
Or is there a continuing & binding duty on parties to the Haindava Tānūnaptra to shed undesirable “assets”, from time to time, which cause harm to the Tānūnaptra as a whole?