developments of S ́aivism during most of the last millennium, which includes
the Na ̄th tradition, the traditions of later north India, the Siddha or Cittar
tradition in Tamilnadu, nor the S ́aiva Veda ̄nta of the S ́an.kara ̄ca ̄ryas and their
monastic institution (mat.has). I can only justify this exclusion on the grounds
that the important doctrinal foundations and practices are established during
the earlier period and the later traditions are rooted in these earlier forms. But
it is to the indigenous understanding of what a S ́aiva tradition is that we must
turn first.
The Idea of a S ́aiva Tradition
Recent scholarship has problematized the idea of “tradition,” particularly in the
West, arguing that traditions are not unchanging, historical trajectories, but are
rather re-formed and adapted to changing political and social circumstances
(Heelas 1996; Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983). The past is constructed to suit the
identity needs of each generation. While of course it is true that in a south Asian
context traditions change and are particularly challenged by modernity (Smith
2002), perhaps more stable social continuity has meant that until recently
traditions have changed at a slower rate. There are certainly traditions of vedic
practice that have survived historical contingency, such as the Nambudri vedic
recitation, which go back possibly thousands of years (Staal 1963). S ́aiva ritual
practiced today was certainly extant in early medieval sources and worship of
S ́iva in some form occurs very early in the history of Hindu traditions. While this
is too large a topic to enter into here, involving as it does the question of the rela-
tion of ritual to wider social and political history, there are clearly continuities
of S ́aiva practice that reach back into the past. Rather than looking at S ́aiva
traditions in terms of the western or western-derived categories of “Hinduism”
and “religion,” to understand the idea of a S ́aiva tradition it is more illuminat-
ing to look at indigenous S ́aiva classifications.
There is a tension between an externalist understanding that would analyze
tradition in terms of history and the way a tradition is constructed in a particu-
lar historical circumstance and the indigenous, essentialist understanding
of tradition as stemming from a timeless source. This is a large issue and the
problem of externalist and internalist discourse is as relevant to Hindu traditions
as to Christianity or Islam. While the indigenous view of tradition is clearly
legitimate from the insider’s perspective and important more generally, it is
often challenged by historical, philological scholarship. Certainly living tradi-
tions can accept and absorb the findings of philological scholarship (as
Christianity has done) and externalist accounts can function as corrective read-
ings of tradition: text-historical accounts are not necessarily incompatible with
religious accounts of revelation. This chapter is written from the perspective of
externalist, historical-philological scholarship, but which nevertheless regards
indigenous claims about tradition to be important and legitimate. At the very
the s ́aiva traditions 201