Louis Dumont Et Les Renoncants Indiens

This text, "Louis Dumont Et Les Renoncants Indiens" by Johannes Bronkhorst, critically examines Louis Dumont's influential theory concerning renouncers in Indian society.

Dumont's Core Theory:

Bronkhorst begins by presenting Dumont's core idea, articulated in a 1982 passage (and a precursor 1959 article). Dumont posits that Indian society for over two millennia has been characterized by a dualistic structure:

• Social Interdependence: Society imposes tight interdependence, substituting constraining relationships for the individual.
• World-Renunciation: The institution of world-renunciation allows for the full independence of those who choose it. Dumont suggests these renouncers are responsible for religious innovations in India. He posits that renouncers forgo social life to pursue ultimate truth and their own progress, viewing the social world from a detached perspective. Their liberation is not salvation in the Christian sense but freedom from worldly constraints. These renouncers can live in solitude or under a master.

Bronkhorst's Analysis and Critiques:

Bronkhorst clarifies that Dumont's theory is not a description of contemporary India but an "ideal types" distinction that has become increasingly blended over time. He highlights Dumont's low regard for modern renouncers, though Dumont acknowledges their historical importance.

Key points of Bronkhorst's analysis:

1. Historical Focus: Dumont's theory primarily concerns the distant past, specifically the post-Vedic and pre-Hindu period, from the early Upanishads to the Bhagavad Gita. His basis is philological, aiming to connect Indological acquisitions through a sociological perspective.

2. Bhagavad Gita and Individualism: Dumont sees the Bhagavad Gita as a pivotal text in the development of bhakti (devotion). He argues that the concept of a personal Lord required a devotee who saw himself as an individual. Through love, renunciation is internalized, leading to liberation from the determinism of actions, where detachment suffices. This shift, according to Dumont, signifies the emergence of individuals within Indian society from the time of the Bhagavad Gita onwards.

3. Tantrism as a Contrast: Dumont's views on Tantrism, which emerged after the period he focuses on, align with this. He describes Tantrism as rejecting ascetic renunciation, replacing it with "reversal." This is significant because Tantrism represents a religious innovation not created by the type of renouncer Dumont initially describes.

4. Modern India and Dumont's Distinction: Dumont acknowledges the presence of individuals in modern Indian society. He views modern Indian thought as a blend of two mentalities: his renouncer ideal and the householder ideal. He argues that the concept of moksha (liberation) is seen as compatible with worldly life, and individuals recognize universal morality. Dumont attributes this blending partly to European influence but primarily to the renouncer acting as a spiritual master within society. He maintains the analytical distinction between these two mentalities for logical, historical, and comparative reasons, enabling a better understanding of Indian society in relation to Western society.

5. Critique of Dumont's "Independence" and "Ideal Types":

   • Pre-Christian Era Complexity: Bronkhorst argues that even in the pre-Christian era, not all renouncers were "free from constraining relations." He uses Buddhist monks as an example, highlighting their elaborate regulatory systems and the importance of monastic rules, suggesting that Dumont's theory might only apply to a small subset of renouncers even then.
   • Fundamental Opposition: Bronkhorst proposes a more fundamental opposition in the ancient period, not between renouncer and householder, but between two types of renouncers and their corresponding householders:
     • Vedic Tradition: Renouncers dedicated to Vedic rites and their rewards (like heaven).
     • Karma/Retribution Tradition: Renouncers focused on liberation (moksha) from the cycle of birth and death, where the doctrine of the retribution of actions is paramount.
   • Innovations and Social Roles: Bronkhorst suggests that many later developments in Hinduism can be explained by this dualistic opposition. He challenges Dumont's assertion that only renouncers could think freely. Innovations, he argues, arose from the confrontation between these ideas and practices, and the innovators could have been either householders or renouncers, regardless of their social role. The act of becoming a renouncer or dedicating oneself to rituals doesn't automatically confer intellectual freedom or a new worldview.

Conclusion:

Bronkhorst concludes that Dumont's theory is primarily applicable to the ancient period (centuries before the common era) and is based on philological analysis rather than contemporary sociology. He argues that a deeper analysis of ancient texts reveals a more complex picture than Dumont's simple renouncer/householder dichotomy. The fundamental opposition appears to be between the Vedic and non-Vedic traditions, with both types of individuals existing as renouncers or householders within each. While acknowledging the importance of opposition as a driving force in Hinduism's development, Bronkhorst reframes the opposing forces as "Vedic man" and "non-Vedic man" rather than solely renouncer vs. householder.