"Secret Cult - Tantrism"

Going back to Chandra : he then quotes Kshemendra and other writers of the time, who caricatured, perhaps unjustly, the Tantric ritualists by associating them with the Kapalikas. Here it must be pointed out that, from the perspective of modem linguistic philosophy, terms like “degenerate” (as used in such critiques) are “persuasive”, and not “descriptive”. Besides, the opinions of the above traditional writers may be biased, or at best based on ignorance, because Tantrism was after all a secret cult. The members of the establishment resented this secrecy, which did not allow of inspection and control; further, they (specially the Brahmans) were suspicious of the anticaste attitudes of Tantrics. Finally, they (i.e. the Brahmans) also resented the fact that Tantric ritual, being an alternative route to moksha, could dispense with their specialized priestly skills.

At this point, it would be appropriate to briefly summarize the Tantric ideology. Tantrics use ecstasy to lift themselves into the joy of mystical union, which, as the Taittiriya Upanishad puts it, is much greater than any sensual pleasure. To power their quest, Tantrics intensify and prolong maithuna by using mantra, yantra, kundalini yoga, etc. Thus, as Bharati explains, the ithyphallic yogi is a sublime image of self-control; maithuna is the replica of divine, cosmic joy, and the orgasmic moment is the nearest human approach to desirelessness.

That is to say, even in modern puritanical India, sexual relations are not that difficult to come by. In other words, the deeper significance of Tantric ritual is rather to be seen, for example, in the late-medieval miniature paintings of royal Tantric couples in sexual union, looking tenderly into each other’s eyes. There are quite a few similar tender postures depicted at Khajuraho. This state of surrender, and of openness to intimacy and to the mystical experience, is a far cry from the rushed attitude of modern man. (It is interesting to note here that the prostitutes of nineteenth century Calcutta called British soldiers “dunghill cocks”, because of their hurried businesslike performance of the sexual act.) Our modern lack of time has also interestingly been construed as a sign of puritanism by many.

Returning to Khajuraho, another scholar who has written extensively on these sculptures is Devangana Desai. Sharing the puritanical world-view of modern Indians, she uses a convoluted logic to try and prove that these sculptures are not Tantric. She finally does concede that they may be a symbolic depiction of the Tantric goal, but she qualifies this by primly calling them symptoms of degeneration, sexual indulgence, etc. The problem faced by people like Desai is perhaps due to the Western mind-body split associated with Descartes. As Gilbert Ryle has shown, the whole concept of a mind controlling the body is illusory and is caused by an improper use of language. Thus, it is not surprising that Desai and others often complain that the mental attitudes of all Tantrics may not be pure, and that the widespread use of such antinomian soteriological techniques would be subversive of social values.

The fact, however, is that Tantrics, like other Indian mystics, have long employed yogic methods which use the body to affect the mind, since the Indian tradition does not postulate the mind-body split. Further, the Indian world-view has always been in some sense asocial, since the sannyasi who renounces society has been the culture hero right up to modern times.

What is really resented by modern Indians perhaps is the personal autonomy generated by the mystical experience (whether obtained by Tantric or other means), whereby the mystic feels himself to be above societal morality. This modern attitude is a far cry from that of the Indian villager, who feels that “Shiva alone can say whether a sannyasi is genuine or not”, and is, therefore, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In this connection, it has been observed that when rural people visit Khajuraho, they view these temples quite simply as part of the divine play (i.e. lila). They do not try to explain them away as a dubious part of the tradition, unlike modern, alienated Indians. These latter are embarrassed by a large part of their cultural heritage, especially the Tantric elements, and see it as backward and dysfunctional in the modern milieu.

This value-syndrome has the strange effect of causing Devangana Desai to characterize such erotic sculpture as a caricature of Tantric practices! This is a queer argument, and would be like claiming that one would try to suppress “pornography” by publicizing the material in Playboy! Desai also tries to reduce the sculptures in question to the mere depiction of auspicious motifs, fertility cults, apotropaic beliefs and the like. This is a simplistic argument, as Vidya Prakash points out.