concludes that the overall tendency “is to glorify the status of an householder
and push into the background the two a ̄s ́ramas ofva ̄naprashthaandsam.nya ̄sa, so
much so that certain works say that these are forbidden in the Kali age” (Kane
1941: 424). Ethnographic evidence also underscores the importance of the life
of the householder in contemporary Hindu society.
Looking back over time, it is noteworthy that various developments in the
history of Hinduism have reinforced the householder tradition. Thus, many of
the major protestant sectarian movements of medieval times, which today have
millions of followers, emphasized the virtues of disciplined domesticity as
against renunciation. Basava (ca. 1106–67), the founder of the Vı ̄ras ́aiva (or
Lingayat) sect in Karnataka (in the south), himself moved to and fro between
withdrawal from and participation in worldly activities, but his followers have
remained wedded to the householder’s life. In Punjab (in the north) all but one
of the ten Sikh Gurus were married men with families, and explicitly opposed
the renunciation of the householder’s life. (The eighth guru died during his
boyhood.) Similarly, Vallabha (ca. 1479–1531), promulgator of pus.t.i marga
(“the way of abundance”), whose followers are found mainly in western
India, was a householder, and so are his followers. Although Caitanya (ca.
1485–1533), founder of the Gaudiya movement in the east, devoted to Ra ̄dha ̄-
Kr.s.n.a worship, did himself abandon family life in his exultation of divine, con-
jugal love, his followers include householders as well as ascetics, All these sects
extoll domesticity as the preferred state so long as it is an affirmation of the bliss
of the union of the devotee and the deity.
In popular imagination, however, particularly outside India, the renouncer
looms large. This may be so because he is a magnificent, even theatrical figure,
who gives away all his possessions, performs his own mortuary rites to proclaim
the severance of all social bonds, and lives a highly disciplined life of austerities
(see Madan 1987: 1–16 et passim). Although he may be impressive, the
renouncer is not the only actor on the Hindu stage of life; in fact, he is not on
the stage at all, but looks at it from the outside. That his gaze is powerful may
not be, however, denied. The figure in the center of the stage is the homely house-
holder. If not exactly cast in a heroic mould, he is not a shadowy figure either.
And, in his own manner, he is a fighter.
The everyday life of the householder is marked by temptations that he must
resist. On the one hand, he hears on his front door the knock of the sam.nya ̄sı ̄,
who stands there in the guise of the mendicant asking for alms, but also sug-
gests the possibility of an alternative way of life. On the other hand, the bhogı ̄
(“enjoyer”) knocks on his back door, as it were, inviting him to a life of pleasures.
The values ofga ̄rhasthyaare challenged and threatened by both the visitors. The
householder’s success lies in his ability to resist the extremist alternatives and to
tread the middle ground, combining the values of domesticity and detachment.
For the Hindu, of whatever caste or sect, domesticity is marked by the feelings
of well-being and happiness.”^6 It embodies the values of righteousness and
action, purity and auspiciousness, and purposefulness and contentment. It is the
good life.^7
302 t. n. madan