"Pan Indian Culture"

   

    

It is a truism that Hinduism is a most heterogeneous cultural phenomenon. The various elements of the Hindu tradition have borrowed from each other interminably, and created a rich cultural mix. For example, through the course of Indian history, pre-Aryan deities were assimilated to similar Brahman ones. In anthropological terms, little tradition deities have continuously merged into the great tradition pantheon. Thus, the local goddess becomes assimilated to the great-tradition Durga.

    In the reverse direction, pre-Aryan Indian culture gradually modified the patrifocal notions of the Aryans. The pre-Aryan culture was full of the worship of the mothergoddess; and this autochthonous element probably contributed to the salient dictum of the Hindu Tantrics, viz. “Shivah shaktivihinah shavah”, i.e. “Shiva without Shakti is a corpse”.

    Thus, Suniti Kumar Chatterjee and others have held the view that woman was the active partner in love-play in pre-Aryan India, and also even today in regions like Assam and Kerala which have been the stronghold of the Tantric tradition.” This pre-Aryan notion that the woman had to initiate courtship probably led to the concept of the abhisarika, which is influential in Indian poetics even today. This is a “reversal of the Vedic and Epic tradition”

    In short, the orthodox traditions of Indian religiosity teach asceticism as a pre-requisite to reach the goal of moksha, defined as the experience of samadhi. There has been, however, a strong heterodox tradition of non-ascetical, erotic teachings which are older than Brahminical orthodoxy, and which probably came from the pre-Aryan culture. The Vedic elements thus came to stand for the exoteric aspects of the Indian tradition, while the non-Vedic esoteric elements became heretical. According to the orthodox, enstasy was to be reached by following the traditional canonical lore, and not by supererogatory methods. Even the methods of Patanjali yoga have been viewed with suspicion by the orthodox, despite the fact that classical yoga fell in line with the ascetical tradition.

    The anti-ascetical tradition, viz. the Tantric tradition, goes against the grain of orthodox Hinduism and is of bad repute. The Tantras are dangerous and heretical to the orthodox. The flavour of these texts is definitely anti Brahmanical, if not anti-caste. In them, one of the pashas or “fetters” binding the ordinary person is conformism, i.e. fear of social opinion. Most people, according to the vamacharins, thus actually shy away from left-handed practice because they are pashus (“animals”), i.e. they conform to the non-Tantric, orthodox (i.e. Vedic) observance. The Brahmans are the main targets of the Tantrics’ pashu - talk, because the former monopolize Vedic ritual, decide what is orthodox, and deny non-twice-born seekers access to the spiritual goals. To the orthodox, of course, the Tantric is the pashu, because he does not control his senses; for the orthodox, Vamachara is a term of abuse.

    This centuries-old “debate” between the Tantrics and the establishment is very stereotyped. The Tantrics’ argument is that in the Kaliyuga the canonical methods are not effective, and so a shorter route to salvation is needed. That is why the Tantric methods are, regrettably, necessary. The orthodox refute the Tantrics’ claim that liberation can be obtained through indulgence in the senses. They say that the Tantric texts have no scriptural authority, and that their claim to being religious is hypocritical. The Tantrics’ reply to this criticism is that one does not have to go through the rigours of their training simply in order to enjoy wine and sexual intercourse.

    In short, the Tantrics’ rationale for their praxis is that, unlike the teachings of the official culture, the senses must be stimulated to their highest pitch, so as to power the quest for enstasy.

    On the other hand, though the Tantrics claimed to be above societal morality—which is another reason why they attracted society’s ire during the last fifteen centuries — their own texts pay lip-service to the orthodox, ascetical practices. This was probably done to make their practices more acceptable to their potential audience.

    To pacify the orthodox, the Tantrics used different stratagems; For one thing, they adopted orthodox ritual forms, including the use of purely Vedic mantras sometimes. In line with this, they also constantly asserted the conformity of Tantric with Vedic injunctions. Further, they concede that though their method is a short-cut to liberation, it is dangerous and radical.

    All these apologetics evidence the marginal nature oi Tantrism in the conservative Indian culture. Throughout the centuries, Indian views about women have remained basically unchanged. The basic axiom. has been that woman’s proper place is the home. Woman as lover or thinker or other autonomous person is not appreciated.

    The Tantric tradition did not really effect much change in this state of affairs. Even though the woman initiate has equal status with men in the ritual situation, she cannot maintain that status outside it. Further, the Tantric texts also echo the patriarchal ideology, because they make lorn-caste women the best ritual partners; this is a reflection of the general feeling that low-caste women are less inhibited, because more “sinful”.

In other words, the male Tantric is prey to a basic confusion about the role of women. On the one hand, he exalts her as the representative of the Goddess; on the other, outside the ritual situation, she is a second-class citizen.

    This identity-confusion of the Tantrics-in-society can be seen in their code-language called sandhabhasha, which consists of erotic terms that could be interpreted literally or metaphorically by the adept. They used this language to keep the Tantric teachings secret for a long time. On the other hand, it has also been argued that they sometimes used this “intentional language” or sandhabhasha in a facetious manner, to annoy and tease the orthodox who constantly attacked them.

    That is to say, they resented and yet cherished their being “illicit”, like mystics elsewhere. This behaviour syndrome is similar to Gluckman’s “rites of rebellion”, or Norbeck’s “rites of reversal”. As Dumont rightly points out, the left-handed pancatattva ritual is a “sacramental enjoyment of all that is forbidden or despised in ordinary life”; it represents a “reversal of values”.

    Still, though Tantrism has been in some sense heretical, the fact remains that it has pervaded Indian art, and has also survived in popular religion, according to Bolle. He points out that the Tantric aspects of the Hindu tradition are reflected in the marvelous works of temple art, which are "documents of a living tradition”. They are evidence of Hinduism’s “openness to the world, its love for the most beautiful and sensual.”

    Padoux echoes this view: “far from being exceptional, Tantrism was in fact very widespread and indeed the common property of all the religions of ‘medieval’ India”. Thus he points out that the element of joy and playfulness (Ilia), which is one of the main elements of the Tantric world-view, may also be found in the non-Tantric context. It is particularly important in the Krishna cults, and is “one of the fields where Tantrism and ‘bhakti’ meet”.

    We come thus to the erotic religious sculpture of India, at Khajuraho, Konarak, and many other places. This forms the “extra-religious parameter” of Tantrism. In traditional Hinduism, man and woman are seen as representing the cosmic polarity. Thus “human sexuality is the mundane reflection of cosmic procreation”. The Hindu mystic, therefore, sees the union between the male and female principles as the union of Shiva and Shakti. Accordingly, in the shilpa-shastra, the principle of drishti-shuddhi (or “purity of gaze”) requires that the outer walls of a temple have scenes from all aspects of everyday life, including scenes of sexual coupling. The true worshipper is one who can see the numinous in everything, and especially in the most intimate experiences of life. Then, when he enters the sanctum, he worships the lingam, which is itself really a symbol of renunciation, since “renunciation is the acquisition of complete desirelessness: the orgasmic moment being the unique instance of complete desirelessness and complete fulfilment in human life.”

    In sum, though Tantrism has always been a matter of small groups— “of active minorities”, to quote Louis Renou—it has had an enormous impact on “all Indian religions”. Tantric texts, temples, works of art, etc., continued to be produced right up to the eighteenth century, bearing witness to the vitality of this tradition. In its later phases, more and more of the texts began to come from “Brahmanic official circles". This may be proof of an increasing hold of Tantrism on the traditional centres of Hindu culture and learning". In this context, we may recall that the great Adi-Shankarachaiya has traditionally been linked with dein-worship. His connection with Tantrism cannot of course be definitely settled, but what is important for anthropologists is the traditional perception of him as a votary of Shakti. Thus, it is quite plain that the “cultural debate" around Tantrism took place at the very core of the Hindu tradition.