The South Asian intellectual and cultural panorama has been portrayed for centuries as a consistent and impervious monolith, easily framed –according to this received opinion– by a few epitomizing effigies, such as the so-called Indian mysticism (twin of the ‘Asian irrationalism’), the static tradition of India and its perennial philosophy (which nicely matches its ‘soteriological wisdom’), all invariably understood as universally fitting notions.

This common view gained significant ground after the beginning of the eighteenth century, although some of its roots can be traced back to the endeavour of leading figures in South Asian thought, even prior to colonization, to establish a unified ‘cultural’ canon. Having proved itself to be an effective apologetic and propagandistic tool, it has continued its career until today in the context of the activism of representatives of so-called Neo-Hinduism. It found fertile ground because it has been reinforced by some classical models of approach to South Asian thought which have been classified by Amartya Sen into “magisterial, exoticist [and] curatorial”.

Contemporary scholars have variedly characterized the features of this common perception, emphasizing some aspects over others. Quite a number of examples could be quoted, ranging from Daya Krishna's idea of “three myths about Indian philosophy” to Sheldon Pollock's description of “[…] the fantasy of a uniquely religion-obsessed India (and a uniquely transcendent Indian wisdom)” and Romila Thapar's attempts to oppose the deep-rooted conviction that “[…] Indian religions were not based on dogma”.