I Am Afraid of Telling You This, Lest You'd Be Scared Shitless!

24 Pages·2017·0.32 MB·English

by  Carola Erika Lorea

religions
Article
“I Am Afraid of Telling You This, Lest You’d Be
Scared Shitless!”: The Myth of Secrecy and the
Study of the Esoteric Traditions of Bengal
CarolaErikaLorea
J.GondaResearchFellowatInternationalInstituteforAsianStudies,2311GJLeiden,TheNetherlands;
[email protected]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:5March2018;Accepted:11May2018;Published:25May2018
Abstract: Astheversechosenasatitleforthisarticleemblematicallyshows,esotericmovements
haveconsistentlyusedsecrecyasaliterarytoposintheiroralandwrittenculturalexpressionsfora
numberofpurposes. ScholarsofSouthAsianreligions,especiallythoseinfieldofTantricstudies,
have been scrutinizing for decades the need for secretive doctrines and a secret code-language
(sandhya¯ bha¯s.a¯),mostlyinterrogatingtextualsourcesandneglectingthecontemporaryexperience
andexegeticalauthorityoflivinglineages. Inthispaper,Ifirstlyaddressethicalandepistemological
problemsinthestudyofesotericreligiousmovementsinordertoproposeinnovativemethodological
strategies. Then,Ioffernumerousexamplesdrawnfromextensivefield-workandin-depthliterary
studyofcontemporaryesotericlineagesofWestBengal(India)andBangladesh,inordertodiscuss
thelocaldiscourseonsecrecy. Finally,IreviewpreviouslyassumednotionsonsecrecyinSouthAsian
religions,andIsuggesttotakeintoseriousconsiderationlocalperspectivesontheaccessibilityof
esotericknowledge,leadingtoamorenuancedideaofsecrecy,constantlysubjectedtotemporaland
situationalnegotiationsbetweensilenceanddisclosure.
Keywords: Ba¯ul Fakir; Sahajiy˙a¯; Vais.n.ava; Tantra; Karta¯bhaja¯; sandhya¯ bha¯s.a¯; exegesis; guru;
contemporaryWestBengal;Bangladesh
1. Introduction
ThesomewhatbizarretitleofthisarticleistakenfromacoupletoftheBha¯berG¯ıta,therepository
of the lyrics of the Karta¯bhaja¯ sect.1 This religious community, whose origins are located in
between Vais.n.ava devotionalism and indigenous forms of Islam, has attracted mainly low-caste
devotees. Its legendary founder, a Muslim Fakir named A¯ul Ca¯m. d (ca. 1686–1779), is considered
a reincarnation of the fifteenth century saint Caitanya, who returned on the earth to restore an
anti-casteist religion strongly opposed to the ideal of renunciation (sannya¯s). These antinomian,
equalitarianandanthropocentricreligiouspractitionershavebeencategorisedas“deviant”or“heretic”
(apasamprada¯y˙) by nineteenth century bhadralok reformers.2 Statements even more shocking than
the one I selected from the Karta¯bhaja¯ repertoire are quite common among the “obscure religious
cults”(Dasgupta1962)ofBengal,whichtransmitesotericteachingsandvocallychallengeestablished
hierarchiesandscripture-basednormativity. Oneoftheircommontraitsisthefocuslaidonsecrecy,a
themewhichthisarticleproposestoexplore.
1 AmongthefewstudiesdedicatedtotheBengalireligiouscommunityknownasKarta¯bhaja¯ (lit. “worshippersofthe
Master”),see(Banerjee1995;Urban2001).
2 ReferringtoBa¯ul,Fakir,Sahajiy˙a¯ andotherrelatedreligiouslineagesas“deviant”sects(apasamprada¯y˙)isstillcommon
amongorthodoxGaur.iy˙aVais.n.avasandISKCONfollowers.See(Sharvananda1921).
Religions2018,9,172;doi:10.3390/rel9060172 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions2018,9,172 2of24
Withinthetransmittedteachingsoftheseesotericlineages3 ofBengal,secrecyissorecurrently
emphasizedthatitcouldbeunderstoodasaliterarytopos. Wemaywonderwhetherthecentralityof
secrecyisaliterarystratagempervadingthesecompositions,ratherthananactualreligiousprescription
reflected in the local epistemological discourse. The aforementioned verses of the Karta¯bhaja¯s
unambiguouslyrepresentoneofthetechniquesof“advertising”secrecyanditsdangerouscontent,a
featurewhichiswidespreadinthelyricsandintheoralteachingsofBa¯ul,Fakir,Sahajiy˙a¯ andother
lineageswhichhavebeengroupedundertheseumbrella-names.4
By using the term Ba¯ul and Fakir, I refer to unsystematic groups of singers and/or religious
practitionerswhoareoftennotorganizedaroundacentralisedauthority,aninstitutionorasingle
charismatic figure, and nevertheless share performative occasions, corpora of songs, a particular
language, and an entire system of beliefs and techniques concerning the body and the universe.
Emergingasseparatereligiouscommunitiessincetheearlynineteenthcentury, theyincorporated
elements and terminologies of more ancient traditions, particularly Tantric Buddhism, Sahajiy˙a¯
Vais.n.avismandmysticIslam. Theselineagesattackcaste-baseddiscriminationandproclaimequality
among ja¯tis and dharmas (caste-based and religion-based social identities). Their body-centred
psycho-physiologicalpracticesofself-realization(sa¯dhana¯)contradicthierarchiesandnormsofritual
purityimposedbybothHinduandIslamicorthodoxies,scripturalnormsandreligiousestablishments.
Liberation,accordingtothem,istobeattainedthroughthebody,whichisconsideredamicrocosm,
asourceofknowledgeontheuniverseandalsoaninstrumentforexperiencingdivinelove(prem).
Amajorobstacletoself-realizationisselfishsexualdesire(ka¯m),whichratherthanbeingrepressed,
needs to be controlled and transubstantiated into prem. They worship femininity and bestow a
prominentroletowomen,atleastintheory.Lastly,theydonotattributemuchifanyreligiousauthority
totheVedas,theQuranandtheS´a¯stras:textualscripturesareregardedasindirectknowledge(anuma¯n),
whileparamountimportanceisconferredtotheteachingsofalivingGuru. Tenetsandbeliefsare
memorialisedanddiffusedthroughavastcorpusoforallytransmittedsongsthataretypicallyvery
cryptic and enigmatic, needing to be decoded by a Guru in order to be understood. Similarly to
Vais.n.avaSahajiy˙a¯ literature,asremarkedbyGlenA.Hayes,andincontrasttootherTantric5traditions,
3 Concerningthepossibilityofapplyingtheadjective“esoteric”somewhereelsethaninWesternesotericisms,Iamhere
referringtothegroupsinBengalthatproclaimthemselvestobetheholdersofasecret(guhya-orgupta-orgopan-)doctrine
andasetoftechniquesforachievingrealizationreferredtoinlocalunderstandingsashiddenormysterious(marma,rahasya)
andreservedtorasikdevotees. Thoughuntranslatableinalocaltaxonomy,theattribute‘esoteric’anditsopposition
totheterm‘exoteric’isreflectedinthepractitioners’oppositionbetweenbahiran˙gaandantaran˙ga,theouteraspectas
opposedtotheinsiders’viewondisciplineandbehaviour.ScholarshavewidelyreferredtotheabovementionedBengali
traditionsas“esoteric”(e.g., Capwell1974; Knight2011). ThequalificationseemstobeappropriateforBa¯ulsifwe
takeintoconsiderationthedefinitionsandcharacteristicsofthe‘esoteric’aslistedbythephenomenologicaloverview
ofRiffard(1996,pp.462–75),i.e.,thejuxtapositionofexo/esoteric,theinteriorisationofthetemple,theandrogynous
model,thesophisticatedsystematisationofmicro/macrocosmologicalcorrespondences,andtheuseofsymbolismofletters
andnumbers.
4 LocalandinternationalscholarshiponBa¯ulsandFakirsproducedaratherextensiveliterature,ifcomparedwithother
oraltraditionsofSouthAsia. WhiletheearliestworksonBaulsweremainlyinterestedintheirliteraryproductionand
humanism(e.g.,Tagore[1931]2005,pp. 188–206),afterthepioneeringworkofBha¯t.t.aca¯rya(1957)aseriesofin-depth
studiesbasedonqualitativeresearchbegantoappear.InEnglish,seeparticularly(Capwell1986;Jha¯1995;Openshaw[2002]
2004;Fakir2005;Knight2011).WorksspecificallyonMuslimFakirsaremorerare(seeSalomon1991;Trottier2000;Fakir
2005;Lee2008).Thetwogroupsareoftenreferredtoasthesamereligiousmovementandtheirnameisfrequentlyused
together,hyphenated(“Ba¯ul-Fakir“,asinCakrabart¯ı1989;Jha¯ 2001). Sahajiy˙a¯ referstothefollowersofthesahajapath,
literallymeaningsimple,spontaneous,orinnate,alludingtothereintegrationintoanoriginalstateofblissfulnon-duality
calledsahaja.ThetermisanoverarchingattributeemployedfordescribingmanyoftheesotericBengalilineages(seefor
exampleMcDaniel1989;Cashin1995). ItisalsoatermthatreferstoaTantricstrandofpost-CaitanyaBengaliVais.n.ava
literature(seeBose1930;Hayes1989).
5 ConcedingthereissomethingwecanunanimouslycallTantricatall,inthemultifacetedhistoricalandlivingtraditionsof
theIndiansubcontinent,IagreewithHayes’sdefinitionofSahajiy˙a¯lineagesas“unsystematicTantricgroups”(2003,p.167)
andIgenerallyacceptotherscholars’definitionsofBa¯ulandFakirbeliefsandpracticesasTantric.Foraworkingdefinition
ofTantricelementsinreligiouspracticeIrelyonthebroaddefinitiongivenbyHoensetal.(1979,pp.7–9)andonthelistof
commonelementsofheterogeneousTantriclineagesprovidedbyBrooks(1990,p.53).Bengaliesotericgroupswouldalsofit
thebroaderpracticaldefinitionofDenton(2004,p.101),whoidentifiedtwoprominentthemes“intheTantricmode:the
centralityofthebodyasavehiclefortheattainmentofsalvation,andconsciousinversionoftherulesgoverningnormal
socialrelations”.EsotericlineagesofBengalhavebeenasubjectofscholarlyinterestforseveralpublicationsonTantrism,
Religions2018,9,172 3of24
fortheesotericlineagesofBengalwehave“virtuallynoevidenceofawrittencommentarialtradition”
and “we are faced with many problems in hermeneutics [...] In part, this is due to the extremely
esoteric nature of the teachings and practices themselves, as well as to the secrecy imposed upon
generationsoffollowers”(Hayes2003,p. 167).
Ba¯uls, Fakirs, Karta¯bhaja¯s and low-caste Vais.n.avas have been described in missionary and
colonialsourceswithadjectivessuchasindecent,obscene,sexuallypromiscuous,immoralandfilthy.
Urban educated elites adopted colonial stances on morality and took great pains to purge their
religiousinstitutionsfromsuchundesiredelements. Duetonineteenthcenturyreformistmovements
andreligiousinstitutionalizationpromotedbyBengaliHinduupperclasses,thesereligiousgroups
weresystematizedasapasamprada¯y˙—deviantandblasphemousVais.n.avas.6 Asimilarfatewasreserved
toMuslimBa¯ulsandFakirs,harshlycondemnedbyIslamicsocialreformists.7 Forthesehistorical
reasons,Iwillrefertotheselineagesasheterodox,consideringthattheyhavebeenexcludedfrom
upper-classHinduinstitutionalization,whilebeingsimultaneouslydelegitimizedandmarginalized
byIslamicreformers.
ThisarticleaimsatexaminingsecrecyinthecontextoftheesotericreligiousmovementsofBengal
onseverallevels. Inthefirstsection,Idiscusstheepistemologicalquestionwhichsecrecyaddresses
tothescholar: Howcanoneconductresearchontheoraltraditionsof“secret”societiesofadepts?
Thisisamethodologicalproblemfortheoutsider,theresearcher,thetranslator,the“esoterologist”
(Faivre2000,p. xxviii). Revising the epistemological and ethical problems related to the study of
esotericreligiouscommunities,Iproposeamethodologicalsolutiontoovercomesomelimitations
previouslyfacedbyscholars. Inthesecondsection,Iexploresecrecyasaleitmotifoforalliterature,
songtextsandoralteachingsofBa¯ulsandFakirs,andIaimtosystematicallyexplainwhatisthepoint
intheuseofsecrecy,encryptionandmetaphorisation. Inthispart,Iarguethattheuseofsecrecyandof
asecretlanguagefulfilsliterary,sociocultural,cognitive-mnemonicandsoteriologicalfunctions. Inthe
thirdsection,Iattempttodismantlepreviousrepresentationsofsecrecyandtodeconstruct,asthetitle
ofthisarticleclaims,“themythofsecrecy”. IsuggestthatsecrecyinIndianesoterictraditionshas
beenoftenconstructedasanimaginedlackofaccessibility,formulatedbyacademicaswellaspopular
literature,andIarguethatthisprocessneedstobecontextualizedanddemistified. Iwillsuggestto
understandtheeticemphasisonsecrecyasasuperimposedconstructionoftheOther—inthiscase,
theesotic/esotericreligiousgroup—subjectedtointellectualandacademicscrutiny. Isuggestthatthe
historicalandintellectualcreationofareifiedconceptofsecrecyisinoppositiontoaflexiblerealityof
accessible,thoughesoteric,religiousgroupsthatcontinuouslynegotiatetheirbalancebetweensecrecy
anddisclosure,privategatheringsandpublicaudiences,hardcoresubversionandsociallyacceptable
codesofconduct.
ThelyricsandtheoralsourcesthatIuseinthisarticlehavebeencollectedduringalongfield-work
(2011–2014,winter2015,winter2018)inWestBengal,andmoresporadicallyinBangladesh,where
I was conducting research on the lineages sprouting from the charismatic saint-composer Bhaba
Pagla(1902–1984). A‘holymadman’—ashisnameindicates—andatalentedasmuchaseccentric
poet-performer, he is revered as a very popular composer of Ba¯ul songs and as a Guru for many
particularlyS´a¯kta(seeMcDaniel1989,2004).IhavefoundsomenineteenthcenturysongsoftheBaulrepertoirereferring
totheTantricdoctrine(“tantramat”)ineulogisticterms.Ontheotherhand,itisimportanttoclarifythatBa¯ulandFakir
practitionersatpresentdonotcallthemselvesTantric,althoughtheymayshareritualspacesandperformativeoccasions
withself-definedTantrics,andtheydohaveinsomeoccasionsself-definedTantricsastheirpreceptors. Becauseofthe
historyandpoliticsofculturalrepresentationofthetermincolonialBengal,ta¯ntrikisnowinvernacularunderstandings
synonymouswithsuspiciouslysexy,dangerousandoccult(seeUrban2003). Henceitisundesirable,formostofmy
informants,tobecomeassociatedwiththeconnotationsbornebythisloadedterm.
6 ThisprocessisremarkableinthewritingsofBhaktivinodaT.ha¯kura,Bhaktisiddha¯ntaSarasvatiandtheirassociates.Onthis
matter,seealso(Fuller2003;Sardella2013;Bhatia2017).
7 This attitude culminated in 1926 with the promulgation of the “Mandate for the destruction of Bauls” (ba¯ul dham.sa
phatoy˙a¯) by Maulana Reyazuddin Ahmad. On the persecution and marginalization of Muslim Ba¯uls and Fakirs see
(Cakrabart¯ı1989,1992;Jha¯2001;Caudhur¯ı2014).
Religions2018,9,172 4of24
Ba¯uls(Tamona¯s´1985;Bhaba¯ 1988;Gopika¯ 1995). Hiscompositions,andthoseIrecordedfromBa¯ul
performers,willbeusedtoexemplifystrategiesofconcealment,the“codelanguage”usedbyBa¯uls,
andthemanifoldpurposesofsecrecyamongcontemporaryheterodoxlineagesinBengal.
2. Revisiting“theDoubleBindofSecrecy”: MethodologicalInterventionsintheStudyof
EsotericTraditions
Thereisanobviousmethodologicalparadoxthattheresearcherhastofacewhendealingwith
esoterictraditions. Inordertoexploreasecretknowledge,transmittedamonginsidersandrestricted
to the initiate, one’s understanding as a mere researcher is very limited. But if we get to know a
shareoftheesotericknowledge,howfarareweallowedtorevealitandpubliclydiscussit,without
betrayingordisrespectingourinformants? Insum,theresearcherisfacedontheonehandwithan
epistemologicalproblem: howcanIknow,ifitissecret? HowcanImakesurethatIamnotthevictim
ofstrategiesofconcealinganddeception,operatedbytheinformants/adepts?
Ontheotherhand,theresearcherhastosolveanethicalproblem: evenifIknow—suppose,ifI
takeinitiationandthussubscribetoagreateraccessibilityoftheesotericknowledge,howcanIshare
it,orevenpublishit? Urban(1998,p. 209)calledthisancienttormentoftheesoterologistthe“double
bindofsecrecy”,thatis,inhiswords,“thequestionofhowonecaneverknowwithcertaintythetrue
substanceofwhatishidden,andthen,supposingonecan,thequestionofwhetheroneshouldreveal
itpublicly”.
Theproblematicmethodologicalblindalleyofsecrecydoesnotonlyinvolveresearchersinthe
fieldofBengalicontemporarylineages, butalsoscholarsdealingwithTantricstudies, esotericism,
as well as cultural anthropologists who investigate initiatory rites and use participatory methods.
Thescholarswhofacedthe“doublebindofsecrecy”havetriedtosolvethisethical/epistemological
problemwithavarietyofstrategies. Onewayofdealingwiththeproblemisapurelytextualapproach,
whichextractsandinsulatesthetext,detachingitfromanypracticeofalivinglineage. Inthisway,the
researcherissavedfromtheethicalconcernofpreservingorrevealingwhattheadeptssay. Inthefield
ofIndianesotericreligions,thishasbeenthemostutilisedapproach,sanctionedbyalongtraditionof
excellentliteraryscholars(AndréPadoux,HarunagaIsaacson,RaffaeleTorellaamongmanyothers).
The disadvantages implied in this approach are numerous, especially when textual analysis
contradictsthevisionexpressedbythetextsthemselves.Tantricliteratureoftenemphasizesthepriority
oftheGuru’soralinterpretationofthetextsandencouragesone’sdirectandintuitiveknowledgebased
onpersonalexperienceintherealmofsa¯dhana¯. Severalsourcesstressthenecessarycomplementarityof
textandoraltransmission.8 Harshlycriticaltowardthisscholarlytrend,Brooks(1990,p.xvii),himself
a follower of a S´a¯kta lineage, observed how this text-oriented approach has been inadequate and
broughtinaccuracyinthefieldofTantricstudies:
Tantricesotericismrequiresthetranslatortotakeseriouslytheinsightsoflivingadepts[... ].
Thetranslatorwillrequiremorethanphilologicalabilityandavividimagination: onemust
gainaccesstotraditionalinterpretersanddevelopacriticalappreciationoftheirinput.
SimilarlyMirandaShaw,whohascombinedthestudyoftextualmaterialwithoralexegesesand
personalengagementinthetraditionthatshehasresearched,maintainsthat:
Tantric written sources are not self-explanatory, and oral commentarial traditions are
regardedasmoreauthoritativethantheprintedwordofancientmanuscripts. Therefore,it
8 Forexample, afamouspassageoftheKaula¯val¯ınirn.aya(1.20f. inAvalon1928)says“Thefoolwho, overpoweredby
greed,actsafterhavinglookedup[thematter]inawrittenbookwithouthavingobtaineditfromaGuru’smouth,he
alsowillbecertainlydestroyed”. Similarly,wereadintheRasaratna¯kara: “Neithersequence(oralteachings)without
writtensourcesnorwrittensourceswithoutsequence(areacceptable).Knowingthewrittensourcestobeconjoinedwith
sequence(oralteachings),thepersonthatthenpracticespartakesofthesiddhis”(Rasaratna¯karaofNityana¯tha3.11b–12ain
White1996,p.xxii).
Religions2018,9,172 5of24
isnecessarytoobtainaccesstoanoralcommentarialtraditionthatissecretedintheminds
andheartsoflivingmasters(bothmaleandfemale)ofthetradition. Evenafterdoingso,
one must respect the fact that those who speak of esoteric practices often do so with the
understandingthattheywillneverbequotedbynameandthatonsomepointstheywillnot
bequotedatall. (Shaw1994,p. 16)
The problem of the interpretation of sandhya¯ bha¯s.a¯9—the enigmatic “twilight language” that
characterisesTantricliterature—hastroubledscholarsofSouthAsianreligionsfordecadesandremains
adebatedtopicinacademicpublications.10 Broido(1993,pp. 72–73)remarksontheimpossibilityto
graspmeaningsinTantrictextswithoutknowing“themethodsofinterpretationwhichwereusedby
thecommentatorsandteacherswhointerpretedthem”. Morerecently,Wedemeyer(2012,pp. 55–60)
proposed to look at contemporary practices to understand how to interpret the notoriously
transgressiveritualsofTantricBuddhisttexts. Theproblemthatclearlyemergesinthisregardisthat,
evenconcedingthatcontemporarypracticescouldreflectwhatwaspracticedseveralcenturiesago,
anenormousgapbetweenethnographyandIndologymakestheseattemptsfallacious. Wedemeyer
himselfreliesupontheaccountsofHoraceHaymanWilson,aSanskritscholarinnineteenthcentury
Calcutta,whonotedthatthewildritesdescribedinBuddhistTantrictextswere“nothingbutakindof
familybarbecue”inwhichboozeandmeatareconsumed(Wedemeyer2012,p. 185). Thisquestionable
referencenotonlytellsusthatthedebateonthedecolonizationofcultureandknowledgehasprobably
passedunnoticedincontemporaryTantricstudies,urgingustotakeintoseriousconsiderationthe
waysinwhichcontemporarypractitionersexperienceandinterpretTantricsongs;italsounderlines
howtextualscholarsinTantricstudiesoftenlackthetrainingtodealwithanthropologicalfield-work
and ethnographic accounts. Or, even more alarmingly, it informs us that scholars engaged in the
history of Tantric traditions are not interested in vernacular and contemporary Tantric practices.
“TheonlycontemporaryethnographyofIndianTantriccommunitiesthatIamawareof”saysChristian
Wedemeyer (2012, p. 264), is Bholanath Bhattacharya, a scholar who, back in 1977, described his
encounterwithBengaliTantricpracticeascomprising“acrobaticsexandprostitution”(ibid.). Quiteby
contrast, a few ethnographies of Tantric traditions indeed appeared after 1977 and most of them
portray their ethnographic objects in more respectful and responsible terms.11 However, what I
havepresentedasthepurelytextualapproachisstillthedominantvoice,representedbyestablished
scholarsintheWest,andtransmittedtotheirstudents. Forinstance,thedetailedchapteronTantrism
in the Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies by Dominic Goodall and Harunaga Isaacson swiftly
dismisses the matter by stating that “present-day practice falls outside the scope of this survey”
(GoodallandIsaacson2011,p. 132).
Asecondapproachiswhatcouldbetermed“espionage”: theresearcherconductsparticipatory
field-work,isacceptedbytheinsidersandpartakesofthesecretknowledge,andthen,forthesakeof
theadvancementofscholarlyknowledge,he/sheshareseverythingpubliclywithnoconcernforthe
consequencesthatthisactionwillhaveonthelocalcommunityofpractitioners/informants.Thecaseof
ElsieParsonsmayrepresentafamousexample,drawnfromthehistoryofanthropology: Boas’sfriend,
travellerandresearcher,sheworkedextensivelywiththePueblostribe(Zumwalt1992,pp.241–48).
When the results of her ethnographic work had been published, one copy found its way to the
9 Sandhya¯(Sanskr.sam.+dhya¯,alternativelyspelledassandha¯,interpretedbyEliade(1970,p.250)asashortenedformofsandha¯ya)
bha¯s.a¯—usuallytranslatedeitheras“twilightlanguage”,oras“intentionallanguage”—istypicallyreferredtoastheenigmatic,
secretlanguagethatcharacterisesTantricliterature.Ithasbeendiscussedbyanumberofauthors,forexample,(Bharati1961;
Wayman1968;Kvaerne[1977]2010;BucknellandStuart-Fox1986).
10 See Brook’s introduction (1990). More recent perspectives on metaphors in Tantric esoteric literature appeared in
Timalsina(2007).
11 Seeforexample(McDaniel1989,2004; Hanssen2002,2006). Otherthananthropologists,someindologistshavealso
relied upon contemporary masters and practitioners in order to elucidate and clarify parts of their textual sources.
ForexampleHélèneBrunner-Lachaux’scriticaleditionandtranslationofSomas´ambhupaddhati,aneleventhcenturyS´aiva
text,isequippedwithphotosofacontemporarypractitionerwhose“patientexplanationshaveclarifiedseveralobscure
terms”(Brunner-Lachaux1963,p.xlvi,mytranslation).
Religions2018,9,172 6of24
Pueblosandtheauthor’sputativeinformantswerekilled. Inthe60s,thePuebloscametobeknown
for their destructive raids in South Western libraries and bookshops, where they sought to burn
every copy of her book. The need for full and authentic ethnography in the interest of “science”
ultimately outweighed Parsons’ sincere regrets at the harm it caused among those she studied
(Bendix1997,pp. 140–41).
In the field of the studies on Ba¯uls and Fakirs, similar ethical concerns arise while reading
AnwarulKarim,oneofthebest-knownfolkloristsofBangladesh. Intheconclusionofhisarticleon
Ba¯uls’practicesofcontraceptionheinnocentlystatedthathepromisedhisinformantstokeepthe
secret,butthatintheend“hecouldnothelpit”(Karim1979,p. 30,myitalics).
I observed these over years but did not divulge these secrets because of sentimental
attachment with them. I talked to many of my foreigner friends who visited me here,
theyweresurprisedwhentheycametoknowsomeofmyfindings. Ipromisedboundbymy
BaulfriendsnottodivulgethesesecretsbutIcouldnothelpitbecauseIthinktheirpractice[...] if
studiedscientifically,itwouldhelpsolvethepopulationproblemtoagreatextent.
Manywouldquestionthedeontologicalplausibilityofsuchanapproach,foritrevealswhatwas
intentionallyhidden,ittransgressestheethicsofaresearcher,anditaimsatexploitinganindigenous
system of knowledge from a dominant position, which is a form of cultural imperialism. Riffard
remindsusthatstudiesofthissortarenecessarilybadintwosenses: scientifically,becausetheyreveal
detailsofawholethattheycannotgrasp,anddeontologically,fortheymerelyaimatarisingscandal
(Riffard1996,p. 383).
Athirdattitudethatsomescholarschosetoadoptisthatofresignationandsurrender:theexclusion
ofthesubjectasaresearchinterest,admittingtheimpossibilityofdealingwithsecrecyinthestudyof
esoteric literature. Within the field of Tantric Buddhism, Conze’s statement (Conze1967,pp.271–73)
likelyrepresentsthisposition:
Thesedoctrinesareessentiallysecret(guhya).Esotericknowledgecanundernocircumstances
betransmittedtoanindiscriminatemultitude. Inthisfieldcertainlythosewhoknowdo
notsayandthosewhosaydonotknow. Thereareonlytwoalternatives. Eithertheauthor
hasnotbeeninitiated[...] thenwhathesaysisnotfirst-handknowledge. Orhehasbeen
initiated. Thenifheweretodivulgethesecrets[...] hehasbrokenthetrustplacedinhim
andismorallysodepravedthatheisnotworthlisteningto.
InthecontextofBengaliesotericliterature,asimilarfeelingofimpotenceandresignationinfront
of a methodological blind alley arose from the words of Tony Stewart. Leaving little hope for the
scientificcredibilityofanystudyofesotericwords,Stewartmaintains(Stewart1990,p. 32,myitalics)
thatwearefacing“alose-loseproposition”:
TheknowledgethatisproducedconcerningtheVais.n.avaSahajiya¯ traditionisquestionable[...]
Anything that is produced will be highly questioned and accepted only with a cynical
distrust [...] We, as students of esoteric traditions, are faced with a “lose-lose” proposition:
ifyouarenotabeliever,yourspeculationisandcanonlybejustthat;ifyouareabelieveryour
statementscannotbetrusted.
NotwithstandingthebitterdisillusionofConzeandStewart,bothauthorscontributedwiththeir
valuableworktoourunderstandingofdifferentTantrictraditionsintheIndiansubcontinent. Infact,
betweenthepolarisedoppositesof“goingnative”,ononeside,andstickingtothetext-basedstudyof
undecodableliteratureontheother,wecanfindsomegoodexamplesof‘middleways’ofcopingwith
theproblemofsecrecy. Forinstance,amongthosewhoinvestigatedtheesotericlineagesofBengal,
S´aktiNa¯thJha¯ hasfocusedontheFakirsinthedistrictofMurshidabad,andHughUrbanhasstudied
theliteratureoftheKarta¯bhaja¯ sect.
Religions2018,9,172 7of24
In the first chapter of Bastuba¯d¯ı Ba¯ul, Jha¯ (1999, pp. 15–18) declares that he has been doing
field-workforovertenyearsamongBa¯ulsandFakirs,andthathewasacceptedasoneofthem(tothe
extentthathehasbeenelectedasthepresidentoftheBa¯ulFakirSan˙gha,anassociationofperformers
andpractitionersthattakeslegalactionandsensitisesthepublicagainstthefundamentalists’attacks
onBauls). Hissympatheticparticipationremindsusofsomemethodologicalsuggestionsproposed
inthefieldofWesternesotericism,suchasHanegraaff’s“empiricalapproach”whichisbasedonthe
balance between “emic material and etic interpretation” (Hanegraaff 1995, p. 108), and Versluis’s
“sympatheticempiricism”.12 Explainingthemethodofhisethnographicfield-work,Jha¯ writes(ibid.)
thathebuiltarelationshipofmutualtrustandfriendshipwithhisinformants,andherevealedas
muchasnecessaryforthepurposeofhisbook,maintainingtheanonymityofhisinterlocutorswhen
explicitlyrequired.
Nevertheless, duringmyfield-workIencounteredmorethanafewBa¯ulsthatarediscontent,
ifnotseriouslyupset,withJha¯’swritings. Jha¯ writesinBengalilanguage,andhisbooksareeasily
accessibleinWestBengal. Itisnotanexaggeratedpreoccupationtothinkthatsomecopiescouldreach
thehandsofzealousmembersofconservativereligiousgroups. Therehavebeencasesofattacksfrom
fundamentalistgangswhoburntdownFakirs’a¯s´rams,organizedraids,cutofftheBa¯uls’hairbuns
andbeards,andforcefullyfedthembeef. Farfrombeingimaginedfears,theseareunfortunatelyreal
lifestories.13
Jha¯ (1999, p. 18) felt the urge to justify, in the first pages of his book, the fact that he is not a
practitionerofBa¯ulsa¯dhana¯ (atleastnotpublicly). Hemaintainsthataparticipativeapproachdoes
notworkinthestudyofBa¯ulsforthefollowingreasons. Firstly,ifyouareadiscipleofoneGuruyou
cannotaskforexplanationsofdoctrinesandpracticestoanyotherGuru. Secondly,takinginitiation
(diks.a¯)doesnotnecessarilymeantohaveaccesstogopantattva,thesecretdoctrine,whichisonlyshared
withworthy,selecteddisciples. Furthermore,beinginitiatedandimmersedinsa¯dhana¯,onecannotbea
researcher. ThereforeJha¯ categoricallyexcludesthepossibilityofbeingatthesametimecommitted
to academic work and personal sa¯dhana¯. Contrasting this view, the precious work of authors that
combinedpersonalexperiencewithacademicactivities,forexampleDouglasBrooks,JamesMallinson,
AndreaLoseries,RudraniFakir,MarkDyczkowski,PaulMüller-OrtegaandAgehanandaBharati,may
wellproveJha¯’sstatementquestionable.
Acknowledgingthefallacyofdiscussingesoterictraditionswithoutknowingthesecretteachings,
Urban(1998,p. 210)proposedaconvincingsolution:toturnourfocuson“theformofsecrecy”instead
ofonitscontent. Inthisview,newquestionsariseonthestrategiesthatthepractitionersdevelopto
conceal,discussorexchangeesotericknowledge. Howissecrecyconstructed? Whatisthelanguageof
secrecy? Underwhatcircumstancesisitexchanged? Howdoespossessionofthatsecretinformation
affectthestatusof“theonewhoknows”? Theanswerstothesequestionsdonotaimtobetrayasecret
knowledgebymakingitpublic,butrathertheydiscussthemechanismsandthereasonsbehindthe
processofveiling,occultingandhidingreligiousknowledge.
Urban’sperspectivecontributedtothesocio-politicalcontextualizationofesotericlineagesand
emphasized, among the functions of secrecy, the creation of an alternative social structure and
12 Versluis’sempiricismsuggeststhat“esotericism,givenallitsvariedformsanditsinherentlymultidimensionalnature,
cannotbeconveyedwithoutgoingbeyondpurelyhistoricalinformation:atminimum,thestudyofesotericism,andin
particularmysticism,requiressomedegreeofimaginativeparticipationinwhatoneisstudying”(Versluis2003,p. 27).
Thesuggested“imaginativeparticipation”referstothenecessityoftranscendingthestrictlyliteralmeaningofesoterictexts
inordertohypothesise(incasethereareneitherevidencenorlivinginformantsforthestudyoforalexegesis)thecontext,
thepara-linguisticandtheimpliedmeaningsthatatextcommunicatestoaninitiatereader/hearer.
13 See“Minstrelsindistress”,IndiaToday,15/04/1994(http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/religious-persecution-of-baul-
singers-of-bengal-point-to-disturbing-social-trend/1/274088.htmllastaccess20/10/2017).In2014,duringagatheringof
BaulsandFakirsdisruptedbyhome-madebombs,aBaulsingerhasbeenkilledandchoppedintopiecesinthedistrictof
Jessore,Bangladesh.See“BaulhackedtodeathinJessore”,BDNews24,02/02/2014(http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/
2014/02/25/baul-hacked-to-death-in-jessorelastaccess20/10/2017).Seealso“Baulsingersincludingcoupleattackedin
Chaudanga”,BDnews24,17/07/2016(https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2016/07/17/baul-singers-including-couple-
attacked-in-chuadangalastaccess20/10/2017).
Religions2018,9,172 8of24
a hierarchy based on the rank of the holders of secrecy, in opposition to a discriminatory and
marginalisinghegemony. AsimilarstandistakenbyRiffard(1996,p. 67)ashestatesthat
Thesolutionistobefoundintheacceptanceofsilenceandvoid,butalsointheirinterrogation.
Silencethusbecomesarevelation.Ittakesashape,itemergesinacertainmomentoftime[... ]
itisconstructedandpremeditated.Thedooris,ofcourse,closed:butwhichdoor,withwhich
carvedpanels,withwhichsymbolickey-hole? Theabsenceofasignbecomesitselfasign.
Isitpossibletoanalysetheformsandfunctionsofsecrecywithoutknowingthecontentofthe
secrets? Would this make us more prompt to misunderstandings and misrepresentations? Is this
whathaslargelyhappenedinAnglo-AmericanscholarshiponIndicesoterictraditions? Sincesecret
movementsandsecretsocietiesofadeptsinWesternhistoryaregenerallyassociatedwithsubversive
politicalactivity,violenceandunrest(Webster2000),thereisariskofsuperimposingculturallyspecific
categoriesofsecrecyanditsnegativeconnotations,disregardingthelocallandscapeandpresuming
thatwhateveriskeptsecrethastodowithtransgressivepractices,revolutionarythoughts,taboos,
andscandal.
Looking at the nature of what is concealed, I noticed during my field-work that secrets are
not ranked for their anti-social or subversive character: the most secret teachings may be actually
extremelysimple,andsociallyacceptable(thesamehasbeennoticedbyWelbon(1987,pp. 61–62)in
hisanalysisofsecrecyinthecontextofIndianreligions). Theyaresecretbecausetheyareconsideredto
beveryprecious;simultaneously,theirvalueincreasesbecausetheyaresecret. Ratherthanmatchinga
culturallyspecific,collectiveimageryofsecretsocieties,populatedbymasonry,KuKluxKlan,andthe
like,theIndiancategoryofsecrecyinreligionsis,inthissense,betterrepresentedbythemetaphorof
theonionintheUpanis.ads.14 Themostprecioustruthishiddenunderneathlayersandlayers,not
becauseitistransgressive,butbecauseitishighlycherishedandvalued. Thatdoesnotnecessarily
meanthat,intheBa¯ulcontext,thecoreteachingsofgopantattvaaredeprivedofpracticesabsolutely
despicable,ifnotobscene,intheeyesofconservativeurbanelitesandorthodoxreligiousexponents
(e.g.,practicesofcontrol,manipulationandintakeofbodilyfluids,particularlythosereferredtoas
the“fourmoons”: urine,faeces,semenandmenstrualblood;Jha¯ 1995). Weshouldneverthelesskeep
inmindthattheequivalence“secret=scandalous”isnotalwayscorrectanditdoesnotrepresentan
exhaustivesolutiontothedebateontheneedforsecrecyinesotericlineages.
Inordertofindawayoutoftheintricateepistemological-ethicallimitationsconcerningthestudy
ofsecrecy,Iproposetousea‘middlewayofthemiddleway’: keepingthefocusontheformsand
strategiesofsecrecy,assuggestedbyUrban’s“middleway”,Iarguethatitisnecessarytointegratethe
awarenessofthecontentofthesecret,obtainedthroughempiricalresearchanda“hyper-participating”
ethnographic field-work.15 In the utmost respect for my interlocutors’ protocols of knowledge
accessibility,andresponsiblywritingonlywhatisconsideredfittobeshared,Iparticularlyconcentrate
onthemodalitiesthroughwhichsecrecyfindsitsexpression,andIinquireintothelanguageandthe
functionsofsecrecy. Thisdiscussionwillalsoshedsomelightontheproblematicaspectsthatscholars
onsandhya¯ bha¯s.a¯ haveencountered.
Sandhya¯ bha¯s.a¯ has been considered as the metaphorical, polysemic and ambiguous
twilight-languagethataccompaniedBengalisongsofsa¯dhana¯fromtheirorigins16uptotherepertoire
14 Irefertothekos´atheory.SeeTaittir¯ıyaUpanis.adII,1–6(Sharvananda1921).
15 Iborrowtheexpressionfromthefield-workexperienceofRudraniFakir,aresearcheraswellasmemberofalineageofFakirs
ofBangladesh.RudraniFakir“theresearcher”andRudraniFakir“theinitiate”havenecessarilyadifferentrelationship
withtheesotericsecret.Theauthorhadtofindacompromisebetweenthetwo.Inherbook,especiallydedicatedtothe
conceptofwomanhoodandfemininityintheFakirs’systemofbeliefs,sheclarifiedherlimits:“Thepathbeingsecret,I
donotconvey‘everything’,butIdobetraythesecrecyofcertainaspectsthatshedlightontheF/feminine.Furthermore,
‘everything’ismeaningfulonlyforapractitioner,andadescriptionofpracticesoutofpropercontextwouldmerelyseem
shockingfora‘spiritual’mind,anduninterestingfor‘objective’minds”(Fakir2005,p.19).
16 ItisawidespreadopinionamongscholarsofBengaliliteraturethattheearliestliteraryevidenceofproto-Bengalilanguageis
tobefoundintheBuddhistesotericsongscomposedbySiddha¯ca¯ryasaround10th–12thcentury.Thesehavebeencollected
Religions2018,9,172 9of24
ofthecontemporarylineagesofBa¯ulsandFakirs. Notwithstandingthecontinuitybetweenpremodern
esoteric songs and contemporary Ba¯ul lyrics, at least in terms of literary devices, tropes and
vocabularies, whichindeedallowedseveralscholarstospeakof“sandha¯ bha¯s.a¯”alsointhecontext
ofcontemporaryesotericlineages(seeforinstanceDasgupta1962,pp. 413–44;Capwell1974,p. 261;
Jha¯ 1999, p. 467; Openshaw [2002] 2004, pp. 62–71), an important difference needs to be pointed
out. Contemporary practitioners would not usually refer to the language of the Ba¯uls’ repertoire
as sandhya¯ bha¯s.a¯. Following the “oral literary criticism” (Dundes 1966) of the diverse oral sources
collectedduringmyfield-work,othertermsarepreferablyused: forexample,ul.tabha¯s.a¯(upside-down
language), in˙gite bala¯, or is´a¯ra¯y˙ bala¯ (to say by hints and signs), a¯r.a¯ler bha¯s.a¯ (a veiled or screened
language), fakiri bha¯s.a¯ (language of Fakirs) and also ma¯y˙ik bha¯s.a¯ (the laguage of Ma¯ya¯—see p. 14).
Nevertheless, the striking similarity between pre-modern Tantric literature in Bengali and Ba¯ul
songs in the use of terminologies, images and symbols, where at times identical verses are found,
allows this discussion to be of methodological significance for a wider range of genres and time
periods,beyondwhatisstrictlyconsideredtobeBa¯ul(adefinitionnotdeprivedofcontroversyin
itself—seeOpenshaw[2002]2004,pp. 19–72).
3. AMoonAppearedintheBodyoftheMoon: theLanguageofSecrecyandItsMultifoldPurposes
I am going to apply this approach offering as an example a Ba¯ul song that largely employs
the literary devices of the enigmatic code-language that I have previously discussed. I chose the
compositionCa¯m. derga¯y˙ ca¯m. dlegeche(Amoonappearedinthebodyofthemoon),17becauseitallowsmeto
touchondifferenttopicsthatIconsidercrucialfortheunderstandingoftheuseofsecrecy.
Amoonappearedinthebodyofthemoon
whatshallwedo,havingthoughtofthat?
Themother’sbirthisfromthedaughter’swomb,
whatdoyoucallher?
Therewasasixmontholdgirl
atnineshegotpregnant,ateleventherewerethreeoffspring.
WhichonewilltheFakirtake? [... ]
Andso,theonewhothinksallthesewordsmakenosense,
He’snotgoingtobeaFakir!18
The song is in the style of hey˙a¯l¯ı, a riddle: a form widely employed in the medieval songs of
theSants,andespeciallylovedbyKabir,whoseversesportraybefuddlingparadoxes,suchascows
drinkingmilkfromcalvesandtherainfallingfromearthtosky(Hess1983,p. 315). Beforethinkingat
allabouttheesotericmeaningsofthesymbols,thefirstreactionsofthereader/listenerareconfusion,
hilarityandbefuddlement,whichHessinterpretsaswaysof“breakinghabitualthoughtpatterns”
(ibid.,320).
Lookingatthesefewverses,wecanlegitimatelysupposethattheuseofanintricatelanguage,
richlyembroideredwithparadoxes,symbols,allegories,rhetoricalquestions,anesotericnumerology
andstudied,amongothers,byBagchi(1938),Sen(1948)andinMojumder’sTheCarya¯padas:AtreatiseontheearliestBengali
songs(Mojumder1973).
17 Particularlywell-knownistherenditionperformedbyGosthaGopalDasinthealbumBengaliFolkSongs(https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=HTJhHb6LbGMlastaccess26/10/2017).ThesongiswidelyattributedtoLa¯lanFakir(?–1890),butotherversions
ofthesongbearinthecolophonthenameofthecomposerMansurFakir(e.g.,Ferrari2002,p.82).
18 Ca¯m.derga¯y˙ca¯m.dlegechea¯mrabhebekar’boki?/Jhiy˙erpe.tema¯y˙erjanmata¯retom’ra¯balbeki?/Chay˙ma¯serekkanya¯chilo/nay˙ma¯seta¯r
garbhahalo/ega¯roma¯setin’.tisanta¯n/kon’.ta¯kar’bephakiri?[... ]/A¯ba¯rekay˙ekatha¯rarthanaile,ta¯rhabena¯phakiri!Forthefulltext
withmorevariants,seeAhmad’santhologyLa¯lang¯ıtisamagra(La¯lan2002,p.523).
Religions2018,9,172 10of24
andelaboratedfiguresofspeech,aimsatconcealingtheactualmeaningfromtheearsoftheoutsiders.
The song is about sr.s..titattva, the doctrine of procreation. It has several layers of meaning, and
each layer may be interpreted differently according to the personal experience of a practitioner.
AsTrottier(2000,p. 110)remindsus,thetermsoftheFakirs’songs“recallaspecificinteriorexperience
and would have little sense or depth without this lived experience. [ ... ] they are practically
consubstantialwithwhattheyname. Theenunciationofsuchtermsawakensandinstantlyactualize
thecorrespondingexperience”(mytranslation).
Among the variegated range of existing interpretations, keeping in mind that more than one
“correct”interpretationisaccepted,IofferoneoftheexplanationsIwasexposedto.19 Themoonthat
cameinthebodyofamoonrepresentsthemenstrualbloodthatappearedinthebodyofayoung
woman: inthewombofagirlthepotentialityofbeingamotherappeared. Thenumbersrefertothe
ovulationcycle: monthsareactuallytobecountedasdays. Therewasagirlofsixdays. Afternine
days(9+6=15,inthemiddleofthecycle,atthepeakoffertility)herwombisreadyforpregnancy,
coincidingwiththephaseofovulation;afterelevendays(15+11=26)shemenstruatesandproduces
threestreamsofmenstrualflow,forasymbolicperiodofthreedays. Ononeofthethreedays,one
ofthethreestreamsisconsideredtobeparticularlyappropriateforablissfulintercourseandforthe
internalizationoftheprocreativesubstance. Thelastlinesofthesongcanbeparaphrasedassuch: one
whoknowswhichdayandwhichstreamtheversesarereferringto,andonewhoknowsthemeaning
ofthesewordsisaFakir;theotherscannotunderstand.
These few verses already provide some important information: the composer is teasing the
non-initiatelistener,advertisingthesecretknowledgeofFakirsandgivingaprivilegedstatustothe
holdersofthesecret(“ekay˙ekatha¯rarthanaile,ta¯rhabena¯phakiri”). Riddlesandrhetoricalquestionsare
usedasa“marketingstrategy”: catchingtheinterest,puzzlingtheaudienceandthus“promoting”a
secretsymboliccapital. Thestrategyiswell-knowninthehistoryofIndianesotericmovementsand
theirclaimstosuperioritybyvirtueofselectivity: asnoticedbyDavidson(2002,p. 245)inthecontext
ofthereceptionoftheSiddha¯ca¯ryas’verses,fewthemesfantheflamesofdesirelikerestrictedaccess
andanauraofincomparability.
Inthissection,IdocumentnumerousBa¯ulsongs’versesthatcaneloquentlyshowhowsecrecyis
conceived,protected,oradvertised. ThisleadsmetoarguethatsecrecyintheBa¯ultraditionperforms
anactofcommunicationthataddressesmultipledimensions,suchasself-defence,ineffability,social
empowerment,self-realizationthroughparadox,andthecreationofanalternativemodelofhierarchy.
3.1. KeeptheMango“HiddeninaJar”: SecrecyandSelf-Protection
Thefirstandmostobviousreasonfortheuseofacodelanguageistoavoidpersecution,toprotect
oneselffromverbalandphysicalattacksbythosewhostronglycondemntheselineages’ideasand
practices. ThusarenownedproverboftheKarta¯bhaja¯s,widelyrepeatedamongBa¯ulsasanalmost
identicalsaying,20 states“lokemadhyeloka¯ca¯r,sadgururmadhyeeka¯ca¯r”: inpublicandinsociety,the
practitioners should observe theprevalent social normsand customs, but in thecompany of their
Guru and fellows, they should observe the only mode of worship that has been laid down by the
transmission(Banerjee1995,p. 44). Versesinwhichthecomposerisencouragingtheconcealmentof
one’ssa¯dhana¯ forself-defensearewidespread. Someexamplescanbedrawnfromtheoralrepertoire
ofsayings,songsandoralteachingscommonamongthedisciplesofBhabaPagla: e.g.,“Gopanekaro
19 ThiswastheexegesisthatIgatheredfromacircleofmusicians/practitionersinBirbhumdistrict.Asimilarexegesis,also
gatheredfrompractitionersinthedistrictofBirbhum,isgivenbyFerrari,wherethethreechildrenareinterpretedasthe
threeflowsthatgiveorigintomenstrualblood: “likeatripletchildbirthinwhichtheovaaretransportedbythethree
currentsthatconstitutethemenstrualflux”(Ferrari2002,p.127,mytranslation).Otheroralinterpretationsofthesongare
reportedinCapwell(1986,p.185),Cakrabart¯ı(1989,p.38),andBhattacharya(2002,p.264).
20 Lok’ma¯jheloka¯ca¯r,sadgurusama¯jeeka¯ca¯r,alsoreportedinJha¯(1995,p.471).Thisexpressioncanbetranslatedas“Behavelikea
commonpersonwheninthemiddleofpeople;adopttheonlyonebehaviourwheninthemiddleoftruegurus”.