Encountering the Hindu "Other": Tantrism and the Brahmans of South India Author(s): Douglas Renfrew Brooks Source:

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 405 -436 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465284 Accessed: 01/09/2009 13:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

Journalof the American Academy Religion.LX/3 of

the Encountering
"Other"

Hindu

Tantrism and the Brahmans of South India

Douglas Renfrew Brooks

RECENT SCHOLARSHIP done much to reclaimthe largelyunexhas field of Hindu esotericismknown as Tantraor Tantrism. Unlike plored in the nineteenthcentury,when the Hindu Tantriccanon was dismissed as "meremanualsof mysticism,magic, and superstitionof the worst and most silly kind" (Monier-Williams:129), contemporary indologists admit with more sympathy "the presence of Tantric elements nearly everywhere in Hinduism from the Middle Ages to our own day" (Padoux 1981:350). The acknowledgementof pervasiveTantricinfluence in Indian religion has made defining Tantrism and classifying different Hinduisms Hindus, especially south Indionly more difficult. Many contemporary ans who are urban, middle-class, and exposed to western culture, undoubtedlywould prefer less ambivalence. They do not wish to be called "Tantric" to associatewith things "Tantric."In contemporary or south Indianvernaculars,"Tantra" relatedterms suggestshady conand nections with illicit sex, forbiddenintoxicants,or effectiveblack magic.1 However, there is as much fear of the Tantric's perceived powers as there is distrust or disdain for his putative licentious and scurrilous excesses. Tantrism'sdubious reputationmay be often exaggerated it is not but unfounded,at least as far as certainnon-initiates are concerned. wholly One importantTantricstrategyfor breakingthroughbarriersthat conDouglas RenfrewBrooksis AssistantProfessorof Religionin the Departmentof Religionand Classics, Universityof Rochester,Rochester,NY 14627. 11am limitingthe discussion of Tantrismspecificallyto its Hindu forms and don't mean to suggest that these generalizations interested pertainto Buddhistor Jain Tantrictraditions. I am particularly in recordingthe views and impressions of south Indians from brahmancommunities. The reader sensitive to the variety of Hindu Tantrisms is asked to indulge certain over-generalizations that might not apply to all cases.

405

406

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

sign lesser persons to sufferingand rebirthhas been to defy social conventions and ethicalnorms in ritual. Tantricsfrequentlyreverseor reject high-castestandardsin ritual,sometimesby including ordinarilyimpure substances, such as wine or meat, or by engaging in taboo behaviors, such as sexual intercourseoutside of marriage. The Tantrics'intention is not merely to offend and rarelyis it to draw attentionfrom outsiders. Rather,Tantricsengage the forbiddento transcendmundane restrictions and to experience directlythe inherentlyblissful (ananda) natureof the ultimatein the form of certainworldly (and often forbidden)pleasures meth(kama). More interested in how these convention-transcending ods bring about these experiences than in how others might react,Tantrics are unapologetic,preferringsecrecy to explanation. The historical record indicates that calling someone a "Tantric"or has calling oneself a "Tantrika" alwayshad political repercussions(Sanderson 1985). Few contemporary Hindus are awareof the pervasiveness of Tantricelements in ideologies and practicesthat are commonplacein Hindu temple rituals, personal devotions, and yoga. They would not (Padoux 1981:350). Many antiordinarilycall these things "Tantrika" TantricHindus would say commonplaceTantricpracticeshave no relationship to anything "Tantric." Believingtheir methods to be dangerousfor the uninitiatedand preoccupied as they are with their own notions of religiousvirtuosity,Tantrics prevent those who are uninvited or merely curious from gaining entry into their traditionsby the use of highly technical and sometimes deliberatelyimpenetrable idioms. In addition, direct transmission of teachingsfrom a guruis considereda sine qua non for any practice. As a consequence, the few things that non-initiate Hindus usually know about Tantrics,and that Tantricsmight discuss with outsiders,are often superficial,piecemeal, or taken out of context. What almost everyone does seem to know is that Tantricsdo things that self-respectingHindus do not. A few important exceptions notwithstanding(Parry;Gupta), academic effortsto studyTantrismhave concentratedon textualand historical issues, accompanied by the usual disclaimers about the of indispensablerole oral and living traditionsplay in the interpretation esotericideology and secretritual. StudyingTantrismpurelyas a canonical religion can resolve definitionalproblems: Tantrictraditioncan be reducedto books writtenin Sanskritand practicedas prescribed. However, text-only studies can only mention oral interpretivecomponents and the roles individualgurusplay in shaping the religiouslives of practitioners. To engage the guru traditionand considerthe enormousrange

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

407

of ritualinterpretations with individuals groups fieldwork and requires who maynot welcomethe uninitiated may be swornto secrecyby or oathsto lineagetraditions.Fieldwork studiesare therefore limitednot but only to the expertiseof the researcher by the conditionsset forth withinthe tradition.While recentefforts havebegunto breakthrough the barriers Tantric of textsto map beliefsand practices, textualstudy alonecannotaddress certain of or important aspects ritual interpretation within the broader matrixof Hindusociety. These explainTantrism issuesdemand studyof livingTantrics, the limitations notwithstanding.2 This studyfocuseson a livingTantric tradition within a practiced socialandreligious in whichbeingcalleda "Tanparticular community tric"is anything a compliment. but and Despitedisavowals disclaimers, this unambiguous Tantric rootedin canonandsteepedin oral tradition, in southIndianHinducircles lore, interpretive has flourished high-caste since at leastthe ninthcentury continues be an important and to force Thissituation raisesimportant aboutreligious today.3 questions identity andidentification well as aboutthe invention the "other" conas of in Hinduism. temporary WHO IS A HINDU TANTRIC? several fieldwork stintsin southIndiain the 1980s,the figDuring uremostfrequently as an example the "typical" cited of Tantric the was lateBhagawan Rajneesh. Shri Oftenrecalling standing him beforea row of Rolls-Royces surrounded dotingwesternfemaledisciples,my or by informants' mixture outrage envywas directed a caricature of and at of whose behavior was deemedinsultingto all thatis good degeneration andnoblein Hinduism.As one putit, because"Rajneesh a Tantric," is he is "notHinduat all." Curiously, Rajneesh mighthimselfhave agreed. Borninto a Jain of affiliations familyandexplicitin his rejection anytraditional religious withhis teachings, a that Rajneesh taught brandof "guruism" drewon a number Indianand non-Indian of elements.Thesefactsnotwithstandis as ing, Rajneesh remembered my informants the quintessential by Tantric:interested sex, the fulfillment any and all desires,and in of
2This article is based on extensive fieldwork conducted in Tamilnadubetween 1983 and 1989 under the auspices of a FulbrightFellowship and several researchgrants from the Universityof Rochester. 3I have in mind the important attributionof certain Tantric works of the Srividyatradition to Safikara and the likelihood that these were composed at about this time by persons associatedwith the Safikaracenters (matha)of Kficipuram and Srigeri.

408

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

ultimatelyin power. The most importantpoint, from our standpoint, was their univocal agreementthat because Rajneeshwas "Tantric"he was "not Hindu," implying a condemnation of all Tantrics. Tantrism was not viewed as an alternativereligion in the sense that one might be a Christianor a Muslim;to be a "Tantric" was to be irreligious. Since the majorityof my informantswere from a brahman caste, they were predisposed to regardall others, Hindu or otherwise, as religious and social inferiors. Tantrics,in particular, were to be condemneden masse; in the long course of Hindu religious history, they assured me, there were probablynot too many "good"Tantrics. Indian Muslimsor Christians with whom I spoke likewise mentioned Rajneesh as a "typical Tantric"and saw his excesses as reflectingpoorly on India. They were sometimes inclined to assign blame to Hinduism for permitting such teachings. Only Hindus took Rajneeshand other "Tantrics"as personally insultingand thoughtit importantto distancethemselvesreligiously, morally, and socially. SOUTH INDIAN BRAHMANS AND OTHERNESS WITHIN For my deeply religiousHindu informants,Rajneeshand his Tantric ilk were a personal affrontthat provided them an opportunityto assert difference, and perhaps the possibility of reflecting on an otherness within (Green:50). Were there no Rajneesh,my informantswould have probablyinvented someone like him: their moral posturingdemanded an "immoral other." The dichotomy of We/Not-Tantric and They/Tantric-leaving aside the possibility of its being an imaginary distinction-created for them a situation of proximate otherness. In such situationsdifferencebecomes problematicbecause "they"are both "too-much-like-us" and "not-enough-like-us" (Smith). The others' differencebecomes too close for comfort. In this case, They/Tantricsmust not be confusedwith We/Not-TantricHindus. Were there no perceived threatof Tantricsat all within Hinduism the Tantrics'remote otherness would have lowered the stakes; interests would not have been threatenedand emotions would have been less visceral. But there are further ambiguities regarding Tantricism that these urban-dwelling, high-caste south Indians feel compelled to explain. Recentlybillboardsin majorIndian cities and in national magazines have advertisedthe services of "sex doctors," who sometimes refer to themselves as Tantrics. Assertingtheir curativepowers over impotence or marital disharmony, these shirt-and-tie Tantrics address social problemsby linking themselvesto popularreligious,medical, and occult

Brooks. Tantrism South India Brooks: in

409

beliefs. In this situationa "Tantric" appellationsuggestsan ambivalent place within Hindu society, albeit somewhere on the safe periphery. While my informants "had heard of people," including "some relatives," who had visited these self-proclaimed "Tantric sex doctors" under very extraordinary circumstances,none of them would have welcomed unsolicited house calls. In all the situations so far described my informantstreated "Tantrics" as distinct others whose views and practicesrequiredexplanation precisely because "they" were not "us." There is, however, another, more complex Tantrism living within the high-caste community in south India. This sort of Tantrism is neither an exotic otherness too remote to be of interestnor is it, properlyspeaking, a proximateotherness. Rather, this often-denied Tantrism represents the other-livingamong-us or the other-who-is-in-part-us. This situation suggests a notion of "otherness within," one in which two or more conflicting interests are located in the same individualor group.4 William Scott Green, discussing the "other" in rabbinic Judaism, describes the stakes involved when examining the "othernesswithin" a given society: To evokethe significant of is the disparity whichotherness composed, to senseof its symbolmustcorrespond powerfully the naming society's own distinctiveness To be revealing meaningful, mustreach ... and it insidethe culture the peoplewho employit, correlate somepiece of to of themselves theybelieveprominently that who theyare,and displays induce response,perhapsfear or disgust,but also perhapsenvy or (50) respect. An "otheress within" the community of south Indian, Tamilspeaking brahmans that "correlatesto some piece of themselves" pits their clannish traditionsof brahmanismagainst Srividya,a type of goddess-centeredor SaktaTantrism. In this context traditional brahmanism refersto a specific social groupbound togetherby caste and to a distinctive textual community,one in which there is not necessarilydoctrinal confession but a shared devotion to an authoritative set of texts (Green:53). South Indian Srividya can be circumscribed similarly. Importantwithin brahmancommunitiesfrom at least the ninth century (Goudriaan;Brooks 1992), Srividyain contemporarysouth India has
difference 4JonathanZ. Smith has noted that when such situationsarise, a strategyfor interpreting is invoked;such differenceis negotiated,manipulated,or self-consciouslyignored. He writes, "Difference is rarely something simply to be noted; it is, most often, something in which one has a stake. Above all, it is a political matter"(4).

410

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

quasi-public visibility; it has assimilated local goddess traditions and legitimizeditself by associationwith importantreligiousleaderspast and present.5 There is little scholarly dispute about whether Srividyais a canonical Tantric goddess tradition or about its domination by brahmansfrom its earliest appearancesin south India. The majorityof south Indian brahmanswho enlist in Srividyacall themselvesby their Tamil caste name "aiyar" (Sanskrita8rya).They are arbitersof the meaning also among those who claim to be authoritative of the Vedas.6 In fact, the "Vedic tradition" of these particular brahmansis not derivedexplicitlyfrom Vedic revelation(sruti) but from later ritual and legal texts known as smrtis which, to put it literally, of "recollect"or bring "remembrance" the Veda. It is the smrtitextsnot Vedic revelation (sruti)-that these brahmans use to explain the complexities of caste relations and the prescriptionsof "orthodox"law (dharma),culture,custom, and morality.7Acknowledgingtheir reliance on this canon, these brahmans refer to themselves as smartas or "followers of the smrts."8 Smartabrahmansdefine themselvescanonicallyas those who follow smrtis ratherthan Tantras, and in terms of their obligation to fulfill specific ritual and social duties (dharma). This contrastswith the view of the Tantraswhich they interpretas a quest for power (gakti)and liberation from rebirth (mukti) (Hopkins). ThroughoutIndia, smarta tradicanonical tions can be identifiednot only by their advocacyof particular and ritualtraditionsbut also as identifiableendogamouscastes and subcastes (Singer).9 In contemporary urban Tamilnadua significantnumber within the
5These associations be takenup laterin more, will detail. I havein mindthe relationparticular to to of Kiaicipuram Srigeriand,morerecently, thelate and Srividya theSaiikaracaryas shiplinking Ramanamaharishi. sageof Tiruvanamalai, 6Fora discussion the relations of of for betweenbrahman castessee Singer; a discussion the of see with templepriests(so-called and adidaivas) other"priestly castes," relationship smartas Fuller. 7Sources brahman see traditions toonumerous list. Foran excellent to are summary J.C. outlining Heesterman (1987). 8Whether modelsandcodesset forth thesmrtis instantiated empirically the observable in and are is not at issue. Rather, interest in how the ideological our lies positionsset forthin the smrtis a that this provide basisfor socialidentity distinguishes groupof Hindusfromothers,including Tantrics. 9Whenidentifying "smarta not tradition" shouldbe careful to divorce we principles ideological of believethat and traditions ritual behavior fromsocialfacts;but neither shouldwe mistakenly textual alone traditions community and are Canonical prescriptions maynot practices isomorphic. must or criteria smarta traditions communities. Rather,one provesufficient uponwhichto identify studies interpretaof and of studies custom ritewithanthropological and couplehistorical textual tion andpractice.As we shallsee, the sameis trueof Tantric traditions practices. and

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

411

smartacommunityare deeply involved in TrantricSrividya. The majority of these Srividyapractitionersare no more likely to relish being called "Tantrics" than most Episcopalianswould identifythemselves as charismatics who have spoken in tongues in witness of the Holy Ghost.10 Only a few virtuosi of both smartaand Tantriccanons might grudginglyagree that Srividyais part of the goddess-centeredTantric tradition. Brahman suspicions of things "Tantric"are not new but rather a part of an on-going historical encounter of Hindu otherness within. The "otherness within" the smarta brahman Tantric provides yet another example of "how cultures, perfectly commonsensical from within, nevertheless flirt with their own 'alterities,' gain critical selfdistance, formulatecomplex (rather than simply reactionary)perspectives on others, embrace negativities,confront (even admire) what they themselves are not" (Boon:232). To proceed with the inquirywe will need to createboth a theoreticalparadigmfor understandingthis intermingling of religious "others"and a descriptionof how incommensurate ideologies and conflicting ethical values are negotiatedwithin this distinctivesocial and religious group. THEORETICAL PARADIGMS OF POWER AND TANTRIC AND NON-TANTRIC HINDUISMS The brahmans' description of the Tantric as obsessed with power (gakti)is one way we might cast Rajneesh,the sex doctors, and Srividya in practitioners the role of "Tantrics."Neither Tantrictexts nor practitioners would dispute their interest is power, or gakti,which they consider the godhead's most importantfeature, the underlyingessence of the created universe, and the adept's practical goal. As Madeleine Biardeauhas said, in Hindu Tantrism power is acquired through the effort"to place kama-desire-in everysense of the term, in the service of deliverance. . . not to sacrificethis world to deliverance,but to reintegrate it in one way or another within the perspective of salvation" (Padoux 1981:351). Consequently, "the quest for liberation is fundamentally nothing but a tapping, a using, or even a manipulatingof ... power" conceived to be divine in origin, female in form, and accessible to human beings through specific mental and physical activities,espe1?Thefact that a handfulof Hindus and Episcopalianswould call themselves "Tantrika" "charor ismatic" and that this causes others who call themselves "Hindus"or "Episcopalians" become to uncomfortableis precisely the point.

412

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

cially ritual(Padoux 1981:351). The universe,accordingto Hindu Tantrism, is nothing but power (sakti), which is creation's material and efficient cause and its imminent and transcendentform. In principleand practice,Hindu Tantrismdoes not separateideological positions about power (gakti) from the practical means by which one acquiresit. Power manifests as knowledge i(jnna), desire (iccha), and activity(kriya),all of which must be transmitted througha guru and appropriated through precise ritual actions and yogic practices. Obtaining knowledge, working one's will, or acting powerfully is, in some sense, to become divine. Ritualis the forum in which these ideological commitmentsare expressed. To be powerfulis, in part, to have possession of ritualsthat confer divinityor createaccess to the godhead. To put it concretely,powerful people can fulfill their desires. In SrividyaTantrismthe adept assumes the form of the divine by in identifyingwith the godhead'smanifestations,particularly images and sound formulae (mantra), and cosmic diagrams(yantra) which icons, are then rituallyidentified with one's body, speech, and intellect. The guru, as the dispenser of initiate knowledge, is likewise identified as a divine embodiment and an incontrovertibleauthoritywho both interprets and stands for tradition." Hindu Tantric traditions agree that obtaining power requires means that must be kept from all but the few qualifiedfor extraordinary initiation (dzksa). In this regard, Tantrism is a classic esotericism in which the purpose of initiation "is to regenerateconsciousness through the reappropriationof primal knowledge that was lost . . . [O]nce attained,this knowledge makes possible a new experience in our relations with the sacred and the universe" (Faivre:39). Since knowledge for Tantrics is a species of power, it is considered dangerous in the wrong hands. The Tantraspromise the ability to control and manipulate society, nature,and the cosmos in toto. Access to power is restricted by encoding teachings in esoteric langauge and by binding empowerment to guru initiation. As one Tantrasays: "The fool who, overpowered by greed, acts afterhaving looked up [the matter]in a writtenbook without having obtained it from the guru'smouth, he also will certainly be destroyed"(Goudriaan:12).
1Though power (gakti)is female in essence and divine in form, one need not be female to obtain it or even focus one's theologyon the goddess. One will, however,necessarilyrequireaccess to the divine feminine principles, the Sakti throughwhich one makes power personal. All Hindu Tantrics, including those theologicallycentered on masculine deities, notice that knowledge (vidya), desire (iccha), and action (kriya)are feminine by definition, grammatically and ideologically,and that power (gakti)is likewise preeminentlymanifest in goddess images.

in Brooks:Tantrism South India

413

primafacie criteria upon which to disqualify a potential initiate. For the arch-conservatives, Srividya should be dissociated from anything that questions caste hierarchies, promotes caste mixing, or places women in roles of ritual virtuosity.13

Tantrictexts, however, often adopt the more inclusive position of a dual norm in which one might be involved in both a Tantricdiscipline and other forms of religious practice. Thus in contrast to smarta brahmanism,which sees itself as incommensuratewith Tantrism,Tantric traditions,such as Srividya,take a differentapproachand preferto remove competitionbetween disciplines, seeing each practicewithin its own sphere. One reason many rejectthe Tantric'squest for power is its connection with sexual imagery or relations with taboo substances, such as alcohol and non-vegetarianfoods. The link between power-defined broadly as the godlike capacityto influence, sustain, or transformoneself or others-and things taboo proves especially problematicto traditional brahmans.12 CertainlyTantricsare not the only Hindus for whom eroticism and taboo (or exaggerated) behaviors are important for obtainingor projectingpower. Yet some choose to seek power without ideas. A minority the use of controversial images or convention-defying have championedso-called "righthistoricalcommentators of Srividya's that handed"practices(daksinacara) deemphasizethe erotic and antinomian elements of Tantrismwithout disavowing Tantricroots and reliance on the Tantric canon. Some contemporarybrahman Srividya go practitioners so far as to disavow all breachesof religiousconvention, including the universal Tantric dogma that caste and gender are not

is or 12AmongBengalisand certainother north Indians the term "Tantra" "Tantrika" not necesis (Padoux 1981:350;Gupta). In Indian languages"Tantra" used to referto sarilyused pejoratively as texts and sometimesthe phenomenon thatwestern scholarshave called "Tantrism.""Tantrism" an imaginarycategory of the analytic imagination is described and defined in fairly consistent terms. See Goudriaan; and Brooksfor general scholarlydefinitions and methods Padoux;Bharati; of classification. "Tantrika" as it appears here in the westernized spelling "Tantric,"is an or, adjective. conventionalTantricsoften define power in terms of controlledviolations of brahman-defined ity and view these acts as means of transcendingmundane rules that apply only to the spiritually will bear out only some of inferior. A closer look at the texts, ideologies, classified as "Tantrism" the associations that cause Tantricsdisrepute or render them morally suspect (e.g., Padoux:1981 and 1987; Goudriaan;Brooks:1990). This fact, however, does not mitigate the importanceof the it perceptionof being "other." Tantricsmay not actuallysay or do anythingdeemed objectionable; is enough that they call themselves or are called "Tantric." 13This position should be contrasted with the view of the fifteenth-century conservative Laksmidharawho is considered by these practitionerstheir standardbearer.Laksmidharastates that "even outcastes (.sidra)"are fit for clearly in his commentaryto v. 11 of Saundaryalahari does not mean state that Laksmidhara who would rejectthat interpretation Srividya. Conservatives

414

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

While the majorityof contemporary brahmanSrividyapractitioners in south India do not accept such rigid interpretations, neither are they about to flaunt their defiance of high-caste conventions. The language they use to describethemselvesand their practicesis not a trivialmatter. Even for liberal brahmans, the term "Tantric"is more an accusation than a description. The repercussionsof rejectingsocial conventions, espousing esotericism,and endorsingbehaviorsthat are possible but not acceptablethreatenand deterthose who wish to retainmainstreamcaste of are identity. Brahman practitioners Srividya quick to assertthat everyto thing they do is "sanctionedby Vedas" and thereforeunobjectionable the orthodox. This theological justification serves an importantfuncto tion, since it permitsSrividya practitioners asserttheir differencefrom (and implicit superiorityover) other brahmanswhile affirmingthe view that nothing they do is deliberatelyanti-brahman. Tantric Srividya'simportantrole within the smartabrahman community, despite canonical objections, requires explanation. Why did some membersof this communityembracea religiousdiscipline that in some measuresubvertsor defies their own long-establishedprerogatives in this sphere of Hindu life? We have provided at least a part of the answer already: Tantrism,which promises empowermentin both material and spiritualrealms,can be worth the risks it might entail. Classical Hinduismhas always admittedthat human beings can achieve rareand wondrouspowers, and its traditionalposition of augmentingratherthan supplanting non-competing practices offers brahman practitionersyet another means by which to assert their religious claims of superiority from withinthe caste community. SMARTA BRAHMANS AND SRIVIDYA TANTRICS IN SOUTH INDIA South Indian Srividyatakes on a distinctive flavor by identifying itself with Vedic teachings and mantras, and by seeking to establish Srividyaas the secret (rahasya)meaning of the Veda (Venkataraman). Particularly noteworthyis Srividya'srelationshipwith the legacy of the non-dualistor advaitaVedantatheologianSafikara 750, C.E.), who is (c. attributedauthorshipof several importantSrividyatexts (Brooks 1987; Khanna; Brown).14 Smarta brahmans in Tamilnadu not only align
to include these low-born persons (or women) within Srividyalineages comprised of twice-bor (dvija)brahmanmales. those texts most scholars argue to be authenticworks of the eighth-centurySafikara 14Curiously,

in Brooks:Tantrism South India

415

themselves with the Sanikaratradition and imagine themselves the defenders of the Vedic traditions, they enforce caste rules rigorously, especially in mattersof purity and pollution.15 Most of the Srividyapractitionerswith whom I had contact were from smarta families located in Madurai,Madras,or nearby cities in Tamilnadu. They thoughtof themselvesas traditionaland, as one put it, Hindus; they were literate in Tamil but only occa"forward-looking" sionally in English, and consideredSanskritthe languagefor ritual and devotion. For most religious and social events they chose to remain strictlywithin caste boundaries,especiallywith regardto commensality, marriage,and other comparableactivities. Of particularimportanceto them was their strict vegetariandiet, equally rigorous teetotalling,and
exhibit no interest in goddess worship or Tantra. Some scholars have argued forcefully that Safikarawas a Visnu worshiper (Hacker:1947). Texts believed to be authenticworks of Saiikara suggest that he was hostile to Saktasand to groups usually associatedwith Tantrism,such as the SaivaPasupatasand skull-bearingKapalikas(Hacker 1968-69; Ingalls 1954). While Safikara likely had importantties to Yogatraditions,he was certainlyno Tantrika(Hacker 1968-69). Nonetheless, the Safikaratradition from at least the tenth century seems committed to an amalgam of Sivacentered worship and Sakta Tantric Srividya,and to align itself with the communal interests of sm3rtabrahmanism(Goudriaan). Tamil smartabrahmans, at least in recent times, hold a particularallegiance to the Sanikara traditionslocatedin the matha or holy seats in Kaicipuramand Srfigeri(Singer;Fuller). The head s few of each matha,who holds the title "Safikaracarya, would wish to defy publicly. The Sankara matha in Kaficipurammaintains control of the goddess temple dedicated to in Kamaksi,a figurewho resembles the Srividyacult's goddess LalitaTripurasundari nearly every the respect. Kamaksialso includes beforeher permanentimage inside the temple a sricakra, principle diagrammaticrepresentation(yantra)of the supreme Sakti, which remains under Srividya's special ritual purview. The unambiguous identificationof the goddess Kamaksi with Srividya's grcakra reifies the theological relationshipbetween the traditionsof the Sfikara matha and the form of goddess worship. Furthis particular Tantriccult responsiblefor creatingand interpreting tradition'ssanction of ritualelements that superficiallybear the marksof Tantric ther, the Sanikara s Srividyahas led smarta to claim the goddess cult as their own. Though the connections between Safikaratraditions,smarta brahmans, and Srividya may not be traceable to the eighth-century Safikara, they have formeda powerfultriad of historicaland ideological connections. The alliance has also furtheredthe notion that non-dualistVedanta,orthopraxbrahmanism,and smartaTantric Srividyaare essentiallypartof a single tradition. In fact, the interestsof these distinctiveideological and practicalnon-Tantricand Tantrictraditionsdo not alwayscoincide. We will need, however,to distinguishbetween theoreticaland ideological conflicts and those which become part of the community's self-consciousness. 15Smartas distributetheir daily worship among the five gods (pancayatana devata,i.e., Siva, Visnu, Surya,Ganesa, and Devi the goddess) though, unlike the staunchly sectarianVaisnavabrahmans known as aiyangars, they pride themselveson their willingness to accept nearlythe entire pantheon of divinities. They are generallynot responsiblefor conductingtemple rituals,a task they delegate to others and which they consider inferior because of potential contact with impurities (Fuller). They retain complicatedrules of kinship between sub-castes, pursue either professional religious (vaidikas)or worldly (laukikas)professions, and maintain a full calendar of religious and social events that preoccupythem in differentroles as individuals,familymembers, and within the larger smartacommunity. Though temple-goingis not requiredthere is no dearthof piety, which finds its primarylocus in the home at the family shrine.

416 416

Journal the American Academy Religion of Journalof theAmencan of Academyof Religion

condemnationof sexual relationsbefore or outside of marriage. Traditional views about women were also still largely endorsed even when they were not followed. Widows were not to remarry,though few would nowadays be requiredto follow the old traditionof donning a saffronsari and shaving their hair as a penance for their husbands having predeceased them. Almost all marriages were arranged, though occasionally college-educatedchildren were able to impose their own choices on parents, provided the rules of caste and sub-caste (gotra) were upheld. Marryingout-of-caste is still rare, the consequences of which can be socially ostracizing. They acknowledgedno other castes to be superior, though they were willing to concede that aiyangarand madhva Vaisnavas are also considered brahmans in Tamil country. They did not frequentlymix with "other"brahmansbut were willing to attend social occasions with persons of other castes providedthey were of comparableeconomic stature. They were insistent on sending their children to secular schools and universities,hoping to land them seats in "preferredcourses," such as medicine or engineering; few would wish to send a child to a traditionalschool for religious training. Only the poorest families or those with strong ties to particularreligious schools, they thought, would consign their sons to lives of certain poverty. While smartas are thought of as primarilySiva worshippers,many concentratetheir devotions on the goddess. These devotees tend to be focused either on local deities, such as Minaksi of Madurai, or on Srividya'sall-embracinggoddess in triadic form, beginning with the physical (sthula) form of the benign and beneficent mother known as In either LalitaTripurasundari Rajarajesvari. south India the Divine or Mother is identified with comparably benign (saumya) goddesses of temple fame, such as Kamaksi of Kaficipuramor Akhilandesvariof Trichy (Brooks 1990:99); a similar series of identifications occurs in Kashmir (Sanderson 1987). Local goddesses favored by brahmans might at some level be considered identical to Lalita Tripurasundari, even when they do not resembleher physicallyin (any or) everyrespect. This identification is reinforced by the popular recitation of Lalita's Thousand Names (Lalitasahasranama), Sanskrit text which smartas a often know by heart and recite before the images of their favorite goddess. At the level above the anthropomorphicimage in Srividya'spantheon is the supreme goddess's subtle (ssuksma) form as the mantra called the gsvidya,and above the mantra,at the transcendentor supreme (para) level, the diagrammaticgrcakra. The sricakra,formed by the

in Brooks: Tantrism South India

417

intersectionof nine trianglessurroundedby lotus petals and lines is, as Goudriaanhas said, likely the most famous visual image in all Hindu Tantrism(Goudriaan). This particulartriad of goddess manifestations, and especially the srfcakra image, preoccupy Srividyatexts and define the more limited scope of the cult's ritual interests. One would not necessarily know from simple observation that Srividyais a significantpart of the ritual and theological lives of Tamil smartas. For example, Milton Singer in his extensive and important study of urban Madrassmartas, never mentions the Safikaratradition's relationship with goddess worship or Srividya'striadic conception of divinityand its place in the ritualtradition(Singer). In fact, most smarta preferto adorn their foreheadswith holy ash (vibhuti)sigpractitioners nifying their devotion to Siva, distinguishing themselves from Visnucentered brahmans.16 Few make a point of displaying devotion to Srividya. With only a few exceptions, the vast majorityof Srividyatexts and historicalcommentatorsshamelessly advocatethe ritualsand ideologies that cause modem brahmansto despise Tantrics.17When prescriptive conflicts between brahmanical and Tantric obligations or teachings appear,most contemporary practitionersseek ways to distributeauthorsuch that the two traditions are seen as part of a seamless whole. ity This applicationof the dual norm is hardlyinnovative(Goudriaan). In certain situations, however, this dichotomous principle, which must Vedic and Tantrictheologies and rituals in order to compartmentalize secure co-existence, shows signs of stress. Put simply, how can selfrespectingorthopraxbrahmansassociatethemselveswith Tantricideol-

16Asnoted, Tamil smartaspride themselves on their religious "liberality," defined, as it were, by their perceptionof other Tamil brahmans,particularly as aiyangars, rigid and haughty. For example, severalsmartafamilies with whom I was well-acquaintedwere ardent devotees of Rama, the who is fame. Otherswere focused on regionalgods such as Murugan, avataraof Visnu of Ramayana of particular importancein Tamilnadubut whom smartaspreferto call by Sanskritnames such as or Subrahmanya Shanmugam. For smartas there is no conflict of interest suggestedby preferring one divinityover another;one would only eschew gods to whom non-vegetarian offeringsor blood sacrificesmight be regularlymade. 17Thedominantbranch of historicalSrividyalocates itself squarelywithin the largermovementit terms "KaulaTantrism,"which it identifies not as a particularcanon of texts but in more general behaviorsare recomin terms as the so-called "left-current" (vamacara), which convention-defying mended for literalritualpractice. While it is true that south India also producedthe arch-conservative "right-current"(daksinacara)or Samayacara,which rejected anything objectionable to traditional brahmansensibilities,these texts and commentatorsare not the most importantor influential among contemporarysmarta Srividyaadepts. Most contemporaryritual handbooks (paddhati)-nearly all of which were compiled by smartabrahmans-mention the use of the five m's and other anti-brahmanical elements as a matterof course ("Anna").

418

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

ogies and ritual practices that would cause them to violate their most cherishedcommunalprinciples of ethical behaviorand religiouspropriety? As I will show, there is no dual norm in practice that asserts the viability of two distinct traditions. Rather,there is a single, embracing norm characterized its otherness within. by Historicaltexts and reportsare inconclusiveinasmuch as it is impossible to know if textual prescriptionsand endorsementswere actually practicedand what impact these might have had on the brahmancombrahmans munity. A more compelling case is offeredby contemporary in south India whose words and deeds can be compared. CIDANANDA MANDALI'S ANNUAL PUJA IN MADRAS The Cidananda Mandalior "Circleof Cidananda"is a Srividyalinecenteredin Madrasthat claims descent from a well-known Srividya age guru whose initiate name (dzksanama)was Cidanandanatha. Cidananda, whose given name was Subrahmanya Aiyar,lived and worked in Madrasduring the first half of the twentieth century. He was a Tamil aiyar smarta brahman who enjoyed an unblemished reputationin the communityof the orthopaxas a learnedauthorityon Vedic and Srividya rites. Cidananda'senduring influence stems from the large number of publicationshis group sponsored during his lifetime, including several importanttranslationsand commentaries. While publication of secret (rahasya)texts is itself a curious occupationfor a Tantriclineage, Cidananda himself saw it as an act of devotion performedin honor of his own learned teacher. With Cidananda'spassing in the early 1970s, his followerstook up his mission and now constituteone of the most active and importantforces in south Indian Srividya. Cidananda's works are continually referred to by contemporary sources of Srividyatradition,often substipractitionersas authoritative for the primaryworks on which they are based. For example, tuting Cidananda'spartial translationand commentaryin Tamil of the thirteenth centuryKamakalavilasa Punyanandaand the influentialSecret of of Worship(Varivasyarahasya) the eighteenth-centuryBhaskararaya by have become so popular that one hardly sees other editions, including the Sanskritoriginals. This is not surprisingconsideringthat most practitionersuse Sanskritonly for ritualpurposes and have limited comprehension of complex commentarial traditions of discourse. Contemporary practitionersacknowledge that their limited abilities in Sanskrithave deprivedthem of furtheraccess to canonicallearning. For them, Cidananda'seffortshave served a particularly importantpurpose:

Brooks: Tantrism in South India

419

difficult and often-mentionedinterpretiveworks are now accessible in vernaculartranslations. In addition, Cidanandamade availablea series of ritual handbooks (paddhati)offeringpracticalinstructionin Srividya and "relatedmantrasciworship, especially the worship of the srfcakra ence" (mantrasastra).While other lineages and gurus have undertaken similar projects,Cidananda'sis noteworthyfor its ubiquityin common book stalls, especially those near large Siva/goddess temples in Tamilnadu. Cidananda's mark on twentieth-century Srividya in Tamilnadu seems secure;whereverI travelled,Srividyapractitioners knew his work and praisedhis effortseven when they did not descend throughhis lineage or necessarilyagree with his interpretations.In more recent times, however,his disciples have not been so unified. A number of individuals and groups claim to representhis interests, each assertingthat they received the guru's empowering blessing (saktipada). Such competing claims are hardly new in the history of south Indian Srividya.18The majorityof this particulargroup, however, seem to agree that Cidananda's legacy has fallen into the hands of one Padmananda,an elderly smartafrom Madraswho was a direct disciple.19 In his writings Cidanandamakes clear his preferencefor the most convention-defying practicesof TantricSrividya. He strenuouslyupheld three principlesto which most smarta would object. His disciples have s been left to explain these seemingly anti-brahmanical endorsements. Cidanandaopenly espoused the literalpracticeof the so-called First, "five m's"-meat (ma.msa),fish (matsya), wine (madya), fermented grain (mudra), and sexual intercourse(maithuna)-as part of Srividya rituals. Rumors abound over whether he literally employed the "five m's" or adopted the more amicable solution of using "harmless"ritual substitutes(pratinidhi), such as milk mixed with honey in place of wine and a symbolic form of sexual intercourse. As we shall see in the evidence of Cidananda'scontemporarydisciples, the difference between saying and doing, and between literal and symbolic forms of ritual action, remaincrucialvariablesin the potentiallyvolatile mix of Tantric Srividyaand smartabrahmanism. Second, Cidananda endorsed the Tantric notion that women and
18Thefamous controversybetween the nineteenth-century commentatorRamesvaraSfri and his predecessor Umanandanathaover the right to represent the interpretationsof the authoritative offers an importanthistoricalexample. See Brooks 1987 and 1992 for details of the Bhaskararaya dispute. also known as K. Ramamurti, died in 1988. 19Padmananda,

420

Journalof Academyof Religion Journalof the American Academyof Religion

(mleccha) could qualify for Srividyainitiation provided they met the stringentspiritual requirementsof the tradition. While this might not seem particularly problematic,such initiationswould requirebrahmans and non-brahmansto conduct rituals together,share in food offerings, and have close contact at religious as well as social events. The potential exposure to impurityseems dangerousto most smdrtas,who would especially eschew the sharing of cooked foods with non-brahmansor the risk of coming into contact with women who do not observe the rules involving states of temporary impurity, such as menstruation. Once again, Tantric and smarta communityvalues require negotiation on the part of those who would affirmboth. In the practicalmeeting of these traditionsthe Tantricritual does not become a force for religious across caste and gender lines, but rathera unity or social egalitarianism force for furtherarticulationof caste bias and a means of mobilizing smartasocial and political identity. Tantricideology is not ignored,but neithercan it sublatethe powerfulsocial forces that bind the textualand social communityof Tamil brahmans. Cidananda'sthird Tantric principle takes us directly to our case Tantrics,Cidanandabelongs study. Unlike conservative"right-handed" to the segment of Srividyathat maintainsthat ritualmust retainexternal components. In other words, ritual cannot be reduced to purely contemplative acts performedwith imaginaryelements. Rather, physical elements and actions should remain present even as they become more significantsymbolicallyand "internally."Likehis importantintellectual predecessor, the eighteenth-centuryintellectual Bhaskararaya,Cidananda arguedthat externalritualacts provide examples of commitment that influence others and remain crucial to the maintenance of one's own discipline.20As one adept put it, "In Srividyait is relativelyeasy to obtain powers (siddhi), but it is easy to fall without diligent practice. We should, as Krsna says in the Bhagavadgrta, continue to act as the act so that we do not create a poor example.21 ignorant Cidanandaalso held the not uncommon view that ritual practices should remainsecret (rahasya)and thereforemust be conductedin total privacy. This position providedcover for those who endorse texts prescribingthe use of convention-defyingelements or who wish to remain
20Theritualdistinctionis known technicallyas external(bahir)and internal (antaryaga).The socalled Samayatraditionadvocatesthe complete abdicationof externalrites in favorof mental contemplation. See Brooks 1992 and Khannafor details. 21 This position is endorsed by no less a canonical authoritythan Bhaskararaya.

non-Indians non-brahmans,including outcastes and "barbarian"

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

421

anonymous. Further,it agrees with the general tendency among Tantrics to take a dim view of the use of ritual substitutes(pratinidhi) that Tantricritual, as a merely symbolize transgressionof conventionality.22 means of obtainingTantricpower, preferstangibleand this-worldlyevidence to validate experience. Cidananda's publishing activities and his disciples' initiative to organize semi-public ritual events have taken the notion of obligatory externalrites in a new direction. While it seems clearthat traditionalists understood that their written works would reach beyond the circle of initiates, such materialswere still kept largely in privatehands. With the advent of print technology and the introductionof formal manuTantrismhas been radscriptlibraries,the complexion of contemporary ically changed.23 Since Cidananda's efforts began in the early 1930s, Srividyahas taken on an increasinglypublic image with a numberof individualsand groups sponsoringpublic rituals,publishing "souvenir"pamphletspaid for by commercialadvertisersand well-wishers, and undertakinglarger educational projectsincluding lineage events and government-registered societies. Bookswrittenby other lineage adeptswho make explicit their effortsto evangelizethe traditionnow complement the shelves of south India book shops that carry Cidananda'sworks. These projects have into public effectivelyturnedindividualsand groupsinvolvedin Srividya institutions.24 Such public activities are usually explained within lineages as an extension of the mandate to provide an example for others and as a means by which to extend the grace of the goddess to which Srividya adepts claim privilegedaccess. Cidananda'sdisciples, especially under the recent leadershipof Padmananda,are awarethat Tantrictexts never suggest or endorse teaching those beyond initiated ranks. However, Padmananda made a point of sayingthat such public effortswere partof Srividya's self-conferred privilege as the goddess' chosen elite to empowerothers "to the limit of their abilities." He went on to say, "Do you think I do this for my own benefit? No. It is for the sake of the world that we were given this great and powerfuldiscipline (sadhana )." The notion of performingrituals for the sake of others and inviting
22Cf.Bhaskararaya's remarksin his commentaryon Tnpuropanisad. 23Thissituationis not unique either to SrividyaTantrismor to India, as Jack Goody has shown in his studies of Africanand other societies. 24Among Tamil smartas such projects usually come with the explicit blessing of one of the Safikara pithas.

422

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

others to have some type of participationhas clear precedentsin smarta tradition,where it is the brahman'sduty (dharma)to performimportant ritualsfor others. When confrontedwith the seeming incompatibilityof injunctionsthat demand both action for the sake of the world (lokasamgraha) and the maintenanceof secrecy, Padmanandastated that he saw no such conflict. In fact, both injunctionscould be fulfilled simultaneously. The lineage's public rituals would keep "secret"elements concealed, make them inaccessible to those without initiate knowledge by mattersunexplained. using rituallanguage,or leave certaincontroversial In practice this meant that Padmanandadid not go out of his way to describe everythingthat might be performedin a public forum. This method, he insisted, was the true meaning of actingfor the world's welfare, as all the scripturesenjoined. To celebratethe life and work of Cidananda,Padmananda and other members of the Cidananda Mandali organized, in January 1985, key what they termed"the annualworship (pujaj) the guru and auspicious of women (sumangali,suvasini)." After months of preparation, which included canvassingthe smartacommunityin Madrasfor donations,the membersof the lineage and their partnersgatheredin a rentedhall with some 1200-1300 guests in attendance. Before the event Padmananda spoke both privatelyto me and publicly, in the lattercase carefullytailoring his comments to his smartabrahman-onlyaudience. First, Padmanandaaffirmed the importance of keeping "the great work of Cidanandafresh in our hearts and minds." Privately,Padmananda wanted to assure me that no one in the Mandali was "as yet qualified"to employ the convention-defyingelements of a full-fledged Tantricritual,thoughlearnedmemberswere quite awareof Cidananda's unambiguous endorsement of these "Tantric practices." Instead, Padmananda said, "appropriate ritual substitutes" are regularly employed, thus offendingno one by the overt practiceof behaviorsdisapproved by the larger brahman community. When I asked Padmananda about the fact that his ritualtexts made clear mention of offerings and acts that many would find offensive, he responded by saying that most persons, including the ritualists themselves, were not fluent enough in Sanskritto know such things were included; others did not see the mere mention such things within the strictconfines of ritualas of problematic. "Only if we were to do these things would there be a problem,"he said. In his public comments to the gatheredassembly of initiates and non-initiates, Padmanandaraised none of these ritual or ideological issues. The strategyof omission played a crucial role for Padmanandain his dealings with the non-initiatesmartacommunity.

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

423

To Padmanandaand his fellow Mandali members, the ritual and liturgicalworld of Tantricmantraswas not meant to threatentheirbrahman social world, provided one took care to distinguish what is said from what is prescribed as an obligatory ritual action (nityakarma). Padmananda wanted nothing to do with "scandalousbehavior"and was awareof the need not to offend his benefactors. This policy, particularly however, did not always please everyone involved, including Padmananda. When I pressed him about the absence of non-brahmansand the failure to fulfill his own guru's ritual injunctions (vidhi), Padmananda simply said that the times demanded "these accommodations,if the ritualsare to be done at all. What is the greatergood? That is how we decide." Padmananda's second stated objective was that Cidananda Mandali'sactivitiesshould benefit the smartacommunity,which had a deep interestin religious works and events. By publishing inexpensive devotionalpamphlets in Tamil and Sanskritand by sponsoring events such as the Guru Puja, Padmanandasaw himself in the role of caste communityservant. Smartas in Tamilnaduare quick to point out that governmentpolicies of "reservation"-the Indian equivalentof "affirmative action"-are designed to privilegemembersof other castes in both s public and privatesectors. Urbanmiddle-classsmarta seem well aware that the privilege and power they once wielded in the extended Hindu communityhas dwindled, a point Singernoted nearly twenty years ago (Singer). Srividya'sTantric ritual, as Padmanandasaw it, was not a means of breakingthroughor breakingdown caste boundaries. Rather, was a traditionaroundwhich the communitycould reaffirmits Srividya position of religiousleadershipand gain access to divine power (sakti), and blessings. The ritual'sexpense and the energies requiredto bring the community togetherwere part of the Mandali'sfutureequity, not an irrational expression of faith by a desperateand failing community. Seen in this light, the Mandali'swork createdwhat PierreBourdieu(1977) has called "symboliccapital." These social and materialinvestmentsare made to secure futuredividendsthroughhighly chargedpolitical acts; the drama of ritual becomes a particularly effectivemeans by which to define the internal dynamics and its power structures.25Thus, the community's Mandali directed its public efforts towards identifying this elaborate series of Srividyarituals as a smarta community event in which the

25I am indebted to William S. Sax for crystallizingthis idea.

424

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

Mandalicould assume a preeminentleadershiprole. To keep the focus on smartacommunityinterests,Padmananda made a point of requesting that I not mention any association between Srividyaand the Tantrics when interviewingany of the Guru Puija's attendees. For those left in the dark about Srividya'sTantricheritage, the ritual did indeed create symbolic capital: Mandalimembersgained prestigeand power by their religiousvirtuosity. Financing for the Guru Puja came largely from small contributions received from families who planned to attend. Advertisementswere placed in both English and Tamil newspapers soliciting attendance, money, and "well-wishers." The advertisementsalso mentioned the of a blessings of the Sanikaracarya Kaficipuram, religious leader held in considerable esteem by Tamil smartas. This endorsement not only broughtlegitimacyto the event for brahmanswho had not heard of the group; it encoded the message that non-brahmans need not take an interest. The Safikara centers are well-known for their public advocacy of non-caste-based religion but privately for their brahman biases. Padmananda was never worried about the possibility that nonbrahmansmight wish to attend. Therewould be no non-brahmanswith the exception of me, of course, he said, and non-brahmanswould not respond to the advertisements.They would know quite well, or have it made known to them, that this was strictlya smartaaffair. When asked if my own presence at the event would cause a problem, he responded by saying that Srividyadoes not disqualifypersons from participationon the basis of caste or gender-a curious position given his sense that "castefeelings" among sponsors had determinedin advance that non-brahmanswould not be welcome.26 I "was not like other foreigners." When I asked what this meant aside from my being an initiate, he said being a foreigner was "not the same as being Indian." Apparentlyamong certaincaste-conscioussmarta some wess, terers were beyond the immediatepale of caste considerations,so long as one demanded no special privilege nor sought too much intimacy. Padmanandaalso made it clear that he did not personally wish to exclude non-brahmans from attending the event but that its success would depend on remainingsensitive to the smartacommunity'scaste feelings. Without smarta financial support there would be no Guru Puja; this prospect was unthinkable since it would be a dishonor to
had 26Padmananda been told about my researchand intentionsto publish my findings,but he had also seen me only in traditionalTamil dress, speaking in Tamil, and had been introducedto me by an acquaintanceas "a great Srividyaauthority."

in Brooks: Tantrism South India

425

memory of the lineage's teacher. Further,Srividya,he reminded me, never said it was wrong for brahmaninitiates alone to worship together. "We are not excluding them," he said, "but we are not inviting them." My questions about Srividya'sTantricideals and the social realities of smarta society clearly made Padmanandauncomfortable. He was at pains to state his own private position that welcomed non-brahmans into Srividyawhile, at the same time, he remained politically savvy in his dealings with his natural constituency. The costs of inviting nonbrahmans,as he saw it, were simply too high. On the day of the Mandali'sGuruPuja,only those who had made, or s were planning to make donations, and only smarta (and other in attendance. Informants who knew Padmananda brahmans) were well said that he was not known to socialize with non-brahmansand that they knew of no non-brahmaninitiatesin the lineage of Cidananda. Padmananda's third reason for organizingthe annual Mandalievent was that it provided a "grand day for ladies," since the worship of would be largely performed by and Srividya'sLalita Tripurasundari directed towards the women in attendance. During the event Padmananda acted as a masterof ceremoniesbut did not interferein the course which were entirelyunder the directionof senior of ritualperformances, female Mandalimembers. The GuruPujawas understoodprimarilyas a community event for women (organized by men), especially married women whose husbands were living, that is, who were themselves auspicious reflectionsof the goddess LalitaTripurasundari.Most husbands did not attend, though there were apparentlyno explicit gender restrictions. Men in attendancehad very limited roles to play since they were neither active ritual participantsnor the objects of ritual worship. In contrast,the women were waited upon obsequiouslyby unmarriedand mostly prepubescent girls (usually daughters and friends' daughters) who functioned as the living goddess' attendants. Padmananda made a point of saying that the role women were playdoes not discriminate;all in the ritual demonstratedhow "Srividya ing are equal." (Viewed in the context of a conversationabout "caste feelway of assertinghis own liberalings," this seemed to be Padmananda's role When I asked him if this extraordinary for women was due to ity). Tantric principles of non-gender discrimination, he Srividya's to respondeddefensivelythat Hindu ritualsdid not have to be "Tantric" women in roles ordinarilyreservedfor men. While Padmananda's place observationwas undoubtedlytrue, it is fair to say that the day's events were hardly a celebration of Hindu women's religious rights or their individual or group autonomy. Rather, the day's rituals were meant

426

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

of largelyas an affirmation the traditionalrole of the sumatgalz,the ideal of the obedient wife and dutiful mother who embodies conservative social values. Though the event was a Guru Puja and included rituals directed towardsthe framedpictureof Cidananda,the guruwas more a host than an object of worship. His chief guest was the goddess herself, Lalita whose presence was noted in severalways and in differTripurasundari, ent degrees of embodiment. On a platformof the rented hall, an alter of icons and images had been established, the center of attentionbeing a picture of the goddess Lalita Tripurasundari "Queen of Kings" (Rajarajesvari) before as and her a three-dimensional,metal sricakra. Presidingover the ritual worship of these objects was Laksmi,a well-known and respectedwoman whose daughtersand grand-daughters were in attendance. Laksmiwas consideredespecially auspiciousfor having had severalsons, grandchilhusband. She was also an accomplishedritualist dren, and a surviving, (arcaka), fluent in Srividya's mantras and worship and considered beyond reproach in her ability to perform the rituals correctly. She described the day's events this way: We worship goddess thegurutodayandworship thewomen the and all here (suvasina) as formsof the goddess.All hereareauspicious is, [that in childbearing or mothers withlivinghusbands] pure[that and is, years All not temporarily suchas theymightbe whenmenstruating]. impure, the giftsof saris,gold, and otherthingsare the grace(prasada) the of goddessand the guru. When I asked her why men were not involved in performingthe ritualand why few men had come to witness the day's events, she said: womenhereknowthe ritualandothersknow[devotional chants Many and/or songs such as,] the ThousandNames of Lalita(Lalitasahasranama). . . Our husbandssupportus. They provided money and theirconsent. all this. Noneof us wouldcomewithout helpedorganize to These[rituals activities] not thingswe arenot permitted do. and are Thisis a celebration ourbeingauspicious We of women(sumangali'). couldnot be thatwithoutourhusbands children. and Not surprisingly,the overwhelmingmajorityof attendees were not the slightestbit interestedin "the religious"rituals,preferringto sit at a distance from the altar in groups gossiping, laughing, and enjoying themselves. NeitherPadmananda the women conductingthe rituals nor were fazed by this behavior. The scene resembled an Indian wedding, in which only priests and the immediatefamily of the unfortunate bride

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

427

and groom are compelled to attend to the rigors of the ritual. While some effort was made to explain the symbolism of the Srividyarituals and the ostensible meaning of the gatheringin short speeches from the platform, most participantswith whom I spoke were not particularly interestedin these matters. This was a day to wear one's finest sari, to meet with friendsand make new ones, and to enjoy the auspiciouspresence of the divine. Mandalimembers resisted imposing their own religious sentimentswhich they said were the compelling reasons to go to such expense and to make such efforts. One senior Mandali member put it this way: "We do not try to make others think or do as we do. Everyonehere is treatedlike a guest. Few understandthe ritualsor what we say. That is no matter. The goddess shares her blessings." Padmanandaexplained in a written pamphlet that the goddess was presentboth in her images and in 788 specially designatedwomen who were her embodiments. The female children of the women would be conferredthe status of the great goddess's minor attendants. Like the fecund goddess, all women being worshipedwere marriedmotherswith living husbands who lived righteous in the law (dharma). Sixteen women were singled out as the primaryattendantdeities of the supreme goddess who presided over the srzcakra.These sixteen were seated at the edge of a chalk-drawntrianglesymbolic of the triangleat the center of the multi-triangular The hall, we were told, had itself been srncakra. transformedby the goddess and through her ritual worship into a snrcakra. In other words, the place of worship was now the very form of the goddess; the women worshiping and being worshiped were none other than the deities presidingwithin the greatgoddess's transcendent form (pararuipa). The goddess was, in effect, worshiping herself. Padmanandastated that the sixteen women singled out for special treatmentwere chosen because they were Srividyainitiates, though not all were members of CidanandaMandali. All were close family friends or relativesof Padmanandaand other key Mandalimembers and all, in fact, claimed to be initiates into the most coveted of Srividyamantras and secrets. Severalwere not adept in Srividyarituals but ratherhad limited mantra-only initiations. These women, however, came from families patronizingthe day's events. Activities,which began at about 9 a.m. and concluded formally at nearly 4 p.m., culminated in a meal. Food had been prepared and supervisedby brahmancatererswell-known in Madrasfor their work at smartabrahman weddings. Served as prasada or, as William Sax has called it, "edible grace,"the ritualmeal, unlike most of the other events of the day, was a matterto which all paid great attention. The hall was

428

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

lined with rows of women, children,and a few men, each with a stack of mementos;all were served a sumptuous,strictlyvegetariansouth Indian meal on fresh banana-leaf plates in the manner of a typical wedding to party. No one would have consideredit appropriate leave before the meal or without their ritualmementos. People began taking their leave afterhaving individuallyfinished eating. TANTRIC AND VEDIC NORMS: INTERPRETING HINDU OTHERNESS Much more could be said about CidanandaMandali'swork and the events of the Guru Puja in 1985. I will limit remarksto the ways in which the situations and ideologies can offer insight into a particular kind of Hindu otherness, an otherness that works within a community that had adoptedtwo distinctiveand sometimes conflictingsets of viewpoints, customs, and textual authorities. In the process of creatingits others, a society typicallyconfuses some part of its neighborwith its neighbor, and a piece of itself with itself; it construeseach in terms of the others (Green:50). Thus, a theoryof the other "involves a double metonymy and a double distortion" south India (Green:50). AmongsmartaSrividyaadepts in contemporary there are few doubts about communal loyalties and priorities. As a social group partiallyconceived in terms of "Vedic textual authority," they imagine no possible situationin which that tradition(or the,canon) could be sublated or rejected, in whole or in part. Tantric Srividya notwithstanding,they never fail to act from withintheirsmartabrahman world view, though this invariablyrequiresa "distortion" both brahof man and Tantrictraditionsand a renaming the "Tantric" "Vedic." of as That which is "Tantric" affirmedas Not-Us throughthe practiceof a is Tantricritual ratherthan by explicit statementsof rejectionor even by mention of the term. Put differently,everythingthat might be called "Tantric" about this particular goddess worship has instead been treated as if it were brahmanic;"Tantric" would be used to referonly to a tradition that is thought to be anti-brahman. In orderto maintainany semblanceof a dual norm by which Tantric and brahmantraditionsare kept apartand therebypermitteda peaceful coexistence, it is necessary for these practitionersto fulfill the requirements of a "double distortion." The "Vedic tradition,"by which these smarta mean their own version of brahmanism,could not possibly gain s from association with anything "Tantric." Tantric Srividya must be reinterpretedas the quintessential expression of the Vedas-a point

in Brooks: Tantrism South India

429

made ad nauseamby its commentarialapologists. It is one thing to declare as "other" someone who is outside the textual community to begin with. It is quite something else to declare that one who has had the text from the beginning can be on the outside. To do so makes the text a victim of subjectivity,reduces its stature, and destroys it as the community'scenter (Green:68). The Tantrasof Srividya,having always been brahmanproperty,become Vedic by partiallydisowning and parthe tially reappropriating languageof the Tantras. Fieldworkevidence suggests that the "dual norm" in which Vedic and Tantricauthoritiesare supposed to operatein separatespheres is, in fact, a single sphere in which brahmancommunityprecedentsestablish what role, if any, the Tantriccanon will play in defining tradition. Tantric canonical injunctions to defy Vedic standardsare not simply dismissed. Rather,the issue of "what would happen if . . . ?" is placed within a larger "experimentof intellect and emotion that explores a most dangerous, destructive circumstance and renders it nugatory" (Green:69). In other words, the experimentwith the "otherwithin us" rendersthat which is truly"other"eithergenuinelyexotic, and therefore uninteresting,or no longer a threat. There are still Tantricsout there, but they are Not-Us. Potential threats or conflicts between Tantric and brahman traditions are addressednot necessarilyby talking about them in public (or even in private),but ratherby acting. Padmanandaand others within his group knew what to do, how to do it, and why it had to be done one way rather than another. In short, they had performedthe necessary experiments and acted out those parts that would secure their stature from within the community'sboundaries. In fact, it appears they succeeded in differentiating themselves in ways sufficient to advance their personal (and group) standing within the brahman community. They had created,invested, and were preparedto reap profitsfrom their symbolic capital. While this may not have been a stated objective,it was a consequencethat few would have preferredto be without. Viewed from within the context of their local religioussituation,Srividya had fulfilled one of its primaryclaims: it had become a vehicle for obtainingworldly power and social prestige. While Tantrismhad been expunged, Saktism- worshiping the goddess as Power-had worked its magic. Though some Srividyaadepts beyond the confines of this group stated privatelythat the CidanandaMandalihad missed an opportunity to affirmTantricideals because of their preoccupationwith caste considerations,none of these criticswere anxious to assume tht title "Tantric." In the example of Cidananda'sGuru Puja,dissociatingSrividya's

430

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

goddess worship from things called "Tantric"created anothermens by which smarta could assert and reclaim diminished religious and social s from within their own ranks. Srividya'sspecial association privilege with goddess worship and its use of popular ritual icons, such as the allows it to appropriatea common south Indian Hindu relisrfcakra, gious perceptionthat ties these images to displaysof power-whether or not the images are canonically rooted in Tantrism. In the Guru Piija of the CidanandaMandalimost of the potentially dangerousand objectionableTantricelements of Srividyawere comfortably manipulated or left unmentioned. Theological issues and ritual were not mattersof discussion or debate. Rather,the event prescriptions reaffirmedcommunity social and political relations in the absenceof a consensus aboutits religious (Lukes). Put differently,the ritual's principles with little referenceto its troublesomeTantric work was accomplished canon;it had successfullyrepressedthe dangersof flirtingwith the community's religious and social alteritieswhile appropriatingits primary objective: an associationwith divine power (akti ).27 With the increasing role urban middle-class, high-caste Indian women play in the work place and their growing sense of entitlementto the fruits of their labors, the Tantricprovision permittingwomen roles denied them in Vedic texts seemed also to express a recent social and culturalpossibility. Lest we make too much of this apparentliberation of women in brahmanrituallife, let us not forget that most men chose not to attend and gave permission for their wives to participate. It was, for these men, an innocent social event that happened to be religious. The consequences of denying their womenfolk this opportunity to gather, especially under these religious auspices, were far greaterthan allowing them to assume these ritual roles. This event set no radical in precedentfor ritualsor roles beyond itself. Rather,it articulated ritual actions an importantbut subtle shift in roles high-caste women have begun to play in religion and the work place. Nonetheless, the provision for women to assume such roles with the tacit approvalof the larger
other facets of Srividya'sTantricheritagecontributedto the event's success within 27Importantly, the smartacommunity,though none would have wished to have these called "Tantric."Of particular significanceis the primaryrole women played as the ritualprotagonistsand as those who were expected to benefit most from the event. Were the ritualssmartaratherthan Tantric,women would not have functionedeither as priests or primarybenefactors,that is, as proxy sacrificers(yajamana). Persons of both genders were self-consciously aware that women would not play such roles in Vedic rituals;they did not necessarilyassume, however, that ritualswere Vedic or Tantric. When I mentioned to some privatelyafter the event that it was not a Vedic but a Tantric provision that made this role for women possible, the remarkwas either ignored (i.e., politely rejected)or I was corrected: it was a provision made possible by the goddess or by Srividya.

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

431

smSrta community suggests a willingness to reach beyond the Vedic canon for authorizationof behaviors that none within the Vedic community find objectionable. While smdrtas are apparently willing to extend themselves into non-smdrtasources to authorizea socially condoned activity,they remain collectivelyaware of precisely which values and behaviors are acceptable. The encounterwith the "other"demandsprincipledchoices and the creationof an implicit set of criteriathat determinewhat is and is not to be done. That certainbehaviorsare prescribedor admittedas possible is not the same as performingwhat is plausible. The ritual itself provided a positive cognitiverole for the communityby renderingpossible a newly articulatedsociety in which roles were changing and traditions were being both preservedand modernized. Though these Tantricrites did not reorder religious hierarchies, they did render intelligible the roles being played by different members of smarta society and legitimized new roles for others. The individual consciences of Srividya adepts in attendanceat the CidanandaGuruPujagave way to the larger social expectationsof the communitywhose approvalthey sought. If the dual norm setting off brahmanicaland Tantricdisciplines was present in this event, it manifested itself as a distinction between private thoughts and behaviors and public statementsand actions. The problem of the smarta Srividyatext or adept insisting on the performancesof the most anti-brahmanicalTantric ritual injunctions still remains. Cidanandaand his disciples provide the case in point. Why would a person who holds a standingin the brahmancommunity comparable to Cidananda's risk the opprobrium of the very people whose favor is sought and in whose service he or she claims to be? The answeris not a simple compartmentalization Vedic and Tanof tric norms. This would suggest consistent principledaction that refuses compromiseand feels no compulsion to concede to social pressuresand communal politics. Canonical Tantric ritual, at least as far as Cidananda himself was concerned,makes no provisionfor the suspension of injunctionsfor the performanceof public ritual acts that are ordinarily carriedout in private. Nor is it simply that most Tantricinitiates and non-initiates are too unfamiliarwith Sanskritto know that such taboo behaviors are textually enjoined. Such prescriptions kept within the strictconfines of ritualare theoreticallypermissible;this is precisely the Tantricposition which, for example, condones wine drinkingin ritual but condemns it outside. Smartas, however, would condemn all such behavior, in ritual or non-ritual contexts. In other words, the ritual

432

Journalof the American Academyof Religion

made possible certainroles and behaviorsthat would, by definition,not transferto other settings. South Indian brahmanSrividyaadepts flirt with their alteritynot to countercompetingclaims of power made within their communitybut to createan experienceof power and of "risk,"albeit one that leaves nothing to chance. The possibilityof defying conventional religious and social codes, as their canon and ritualsprofess, can be just as powerful as breaking them. Were a brahman practitionerof Srividya'sTantric ritualsfound out to be "corrupting" women, drinkingliquor, and feaston non-vegetarianfood, community condemnationwould certainly ing follow. But flirting with taboos in ritual language is not the same as being "caughtin the act," the possibility of which is renderednugatory. An adept's flirtationswith alterityserve only to increase the perception of the individual as powerful, so powerful in fact that he (or she) can defy in words the normativevalues of the caste community. The fact that Srividyainitiates find it necessaryand possible to conceal or obfuscatetheir Tantricheritagefrom the largercaste community may seem a dramatic compromise of their own ideology of power. Neither Cidanandanor his disciples would defend or evangelizeTantric values in speech or acts that non-initiates might understand. In contrast,using canonicalwritingwas a safe and legitimatemedium through which to express and acquire power which, in other media, is taboo. Such writing,like the ritualperformedby the Mandali,could not rely for its power by being completely concealed. There must be some expression that places the canon in the domain of non-initiates, even if it requiresa double distortion. CanonicalTantricwriters,like contemporary ritualists,make themselves well-known and respectedthroughintellectualprowess and ritual literacy;the adepts appear,to all who see them, to be pillars of community rectitude. Further,the author or ritualistwho uses the text gains notoriety even when others do not realize they could not do likewise without endangeringtheir social standing. Tantric power begins with the perception that one is religiouslysanctified;the adept must create an of power which can be confirmedby others. This is someexperience times accomplished by ritual performancesor, nowadays, by publications. To express power, in these particular Tantricterms, requiresthat one keep open the possibility of socially prohibitedbehaviorswhich, if at theyare performed all, must be kept entirelyprivate. Power does not on displays of knowledge which others do not have, but depend merely also on the self-perceptionof the Tantricthat he or she might possibly do what others would not dare to propose.

Brooks. in India Brooks: Tantnsm South India Tantrism in South

433 433

The ideal of the CidanandaMandali'sritualsis not to fulfill the prescriptionsof their guru by performingTantricritualsin public that defy brahmancommunitystandards. Rather,theirideal requiresthat they not perform them. Herein lies the power of the Tantric as the Hindu "other" for smarta brahmans in contemporarysouth India: power expressesitself not so much by what one does, or says one might do, but by what others would never do. This particularHindu encounterwith the "otherwithin" addressesnew situationsand old problems while, at the same time, it recastsroles within a communityprobing the boundaries of it own legitimacyand self-understanding.28

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tradition.London: Rider and Co.; revised Bharati, The Tantric Agehananda Americanpaperbackedition, New York: SamuelWeis1975 er. [1965] Boon, James A. 1982 CulOther Tribes,OtherScribes:Symbolic Anthropology and Texts. Cambridge: Unitures,Histories, Religions, versity Press.

Bourdieu,Pierre Outlineof a Theory Practice. Cambridge: University of 1977 Press. Brooks, Douglas Renfrew 1987 1990 The SrividyaSchool of Sakta Tantrism:A Study of the in Textsand Contexts the LivingTraditions SouthIndia. of Ph.D. dissertation,HarvardUniversity. TheSecretof the ThreeCities. An Introduction Hindu to Sakta Tantrism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1992 Auspicious Wisdom. The Textsand Traditions Snvidya of in Sakta Tantrism SouthIndia. Albany: State University of New York Press.

28I wish to thank J. Andrew Overman, Th. Emil Homerin, Edward Wierenga, KathrynArgetsinger, Dean A. Miller,LesleyAdams, Thomas Coburn,and John Freymannfor their contributions to this study.

434

Journal theAmerican of Academy Rehgion of Academy Religion of of

or OrienBrown, W. Norman, Saundaryalahari, TheFloodof Beauty. Harvard ed. and trans. tal Series 43. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity 1958 Press. Cenkner,William TheSankaracaryas Hinduorthodoxy contemporary and in perspective.Proceedingsof the First InternationalSymposium on Asian Studies 4:785-796.

Cidananda(aka N. Kamakalavilasawith Commentary. Madras: GuhyaSubrahmanya) nanda MandaliTrust. 1938 and In Faivre,Antoine "Esotericism." HiddenTruths, Alchemy the Magic, 1989 Occult,38-49. Ed. by LawrenceE. Sullivan. New York: MacmillanPublishing Co. Fuller, C.J. Servantsof the Goddess. The Priestsof a South Indian 1984 Temple. Cambridge: UniversityPress. Goody, Jack The Domesticationof the Savage Mind. Cambridge: 1977 CambridgeUniversityPress. and Goudriaan,T. and HinduTantric SaktaLiterature.A Historyof Indian edited by Jan Gonda, Vol. II, fasc. 2 WiesSanjuktaGupta Literature, 1981 baden: Otto Harrossowitz. Green, William " 'Otherness'Within: Towardsa Theory of Difference Scott in RabbinicJudaism." In "ToSee Ourselves Other as See in 1985 Us'" Christians, 49-69. Jews, "Others" Late Antiquity, Ed. by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress. 2.Abt.: Inder Gupta, Sanjukta HinduTantrism.Handbuch Orientalistik, Dirk Jan Hoens and dien, 4.Band, 2.Abschnitt. Leiden and Koln: E.J. Brill. Teun Goudriaan 1981 Hacker,Paul "Eigentiimlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Safikaras:Avidya,Namarupa,Maya,Isvara."Zeitschrift der Deutschen C:246-286. Gesellschaft Morgenldndischen 1947 "Safikaracarya Safikarabhagavatpada." Indian New and Antiquary April-June. 1952 "Die Lehrevon den Realitatsgraden Advaita-Vedanim ta." Zeitschrift Missionwissenschaft Religionswisund fr senschaft: 277ff.

Brooks: Tantrism South India in

435

1968-69

"Safikara Yogin und Safikara Advaitin." Wiener der der Zeitschriftfirdie KundeSud-undOstasiens: 119ff.

Heesterman,J.C. "Power and Authorityin Indian Tradition." In Tradi1979 tionand Politics South in Asia, 60-85. Ed. by R. J. Moore. New Delhi: Vikas. 1987 "Vedism and Brahmanism." In The Encyclopedia of Religion15:217-242. Ed. by MirceaEliade. New York: MacMillanPublishing Co. Hopkins, Thomas J. 1971 Ingalls, Daniel H.H. 1953 1954 TheHinduReligious Tradition. Encino and Belmont,CA: Dickenson Publishing Co.

"Samkara the Question 'Whose is Avidya'?"Philoson ophyEast and West: 68ff. "Samkara's Argumentsagainstthe Buddhists."PhilosoEast and West: 291-316. phy 1959 "The BrahmanTradition." In Traditional India: Structure and Change. Ed. by Milton Singer. Philadelphia: AmericanFolklore Society. Poona:

Kane, P.V. History of the Dharmasastra. 5 Vols. 1930-62 Bhandarkar Oriental ResearchInstitute.

based on SivaKhanna,Madhu The Conceptand Liturgy the Srfcakra of 1986 nanda'sTrilogy.Doctoraldissertation,OxfordUniversity. Lukes, Steven "PoliticalRitualsand Social Integration."Sociology 9.2. 1981 Monier-Williams, Hinduism. London: Society for Promoting Christian Monier Knowledge. 1894 Neusner, Jacob "Thinkingabout the 'Other'in Religion: It Is Necessa1990 ry but Is it Possible?" Modem Theology 6:3:273-285. and in O'Flaherty,Wendy Asceticism Eroticism theMythology Siva. Oxford: of Doniger ClarendonPress. 1973

436

Journal theAmerican Academy Religion of of Padoux, Andre "A Surveyof TantricHinduismfor the Historianof Re1981 ligions." Reviewarticleof HinduTantricism Sanjukta by Gupta, Dirk Jan Hoens, and Teun Goudriaan. History 20/4:345-360. of Religions 1987 "Tantrism: Hindu Tantrism." In The Encyclopedia of Religion14:274-280. Ed. by MirceaEliade New York: MacMillanand Co. Hindu Tantras. 1990 Vac,The Concept the WordIn Selected of Trans.by JacquesGontier. Albany: StateUniversityof New York Press. Parry,Jonathan "SacrificialDeath and the NecrophagousAscetic." In 1982 Death and the Regenerationof Life. Ed. by Maurice Bloch and JonathanParryCambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sanderson,Alexis 1985

1987

"Purityand Power Among the Brahminsof Kashmir." and In TheCategory the Person:Anthropological Philoof 190-216. Ed. by Michael Carsophical Perspectives, rither,StevenCollins, StevenLukes. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. "Saivismin Kashmir." In The Encyclopedia Religion of 13:16-17. Ed. by MirceaEliade. New York: MacMillan and Co.

Modernizes.London: Pall Mall. Singer, Milton Whena GreatTradition 1972 Smith, JonathanZ. 1985 "What a Difference a Difference Makes." In "ToSee in Ourselves OtherSee Us'" Christians, as Jews, "Others" LateAntiquity, 3-48. Ed. by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress.

K.R. "Sakticult in South India." In Cultural Venkataraman, History India, of 1956 Vol. IV, 252-259. Ed. by HaridasBhattacharya.Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission.