“A serious historian takes a problem as problem, it does not matter whether he/she can solve it or not” – Eric Hobsbawm
I
I
One of the earliest works on Mahimā Dharma comes from Indologist Nagendranath Basu who sees something like straight Buddhist legacy in the dharma and concludes the dharma as new Buddhism of Orissa. The first resistance to the view of Basu comes from Visvanath Baba, a prominent insider of a large sect of the dharma who holds the view that the dharma is the purest form of the (so-called) Hinduism which was propagated by the supreme divine being (Mahima Gosain) when the divine rule has violated by the human beings. Chittaranjan Das, a well-known Oriya critic and writer, completely discards the work of Basu and defends many of the views of the Baba just to say, searching lineage of Mahimā dharma is nothing else but naïveté. Betina Bäumer in one of her recent papers suggest that the texts authored by Bhima Bhoi, the immediate disciple of the founder and primary spokesperson of the dharma, contain many tantric elements and Visvanath Baba suppresses those to clothe the dharma with Vedantic philosophy. She refers a paper of Anncharlott Eschmann, where the latter suggests that the theology of Mahimā Dharma, as it is available in the original works of Bhima Bhoi, someway resembles with the medieval secret doctrines of the Orissan Vaiśnavas. Whether I agree or disagree with anyone is different matter, but I take all these arguments or suggestions seriously due to my special concern with history along with plurality and multiplicity of Indian culture and society. My concern with this 19th century socio-religious movement is else for the same reason that whether a study of the movement can help us in providing any clue for the historical continuities and changes in culture in general and particularly in the complex multi-cultural context of Indian subcontinent. Within the scope of this short seminar paper, I would, therefore, like to examine the symbols that structurally construct Mahimā Dharma as a cultural entity within seemingly non-political sphere of dominance and hegemony.
The works of the scholars, I have mentioned above, have both strengths and weaknesses. The problems with the work of Basu are that a) he lacks many factual data on Mahimā dharma, b) he was not exposed to the texts of Bhima Bhoi, c) he used a narrow and under-developed method for field research and d) the diversity of Indian religions and their mutual exclusiveness was beyond his knowledge. When Chittaranjan Das venture a criticism to Basu, though not systematically, he points out these limitations of the latter. But what Das himself lack that he uncritically accepts the Works of Visvanath Baba as authentic and historical. In real sense, Das too does not possess historical and field information on the dharma. While Basu’s main objective is to trace the lineage of the dharma, Das does not see any validity of such objective as he does not believe in cause and effect relationship. But can we believe an idea of something that comes out absolute zero? Perhaps that is not. Particularly in the case of Indian religion, there may not be lineage, but there are many legacies. Basu has taken a relevant problem, though he could not solve it. When Betina Bäumer finds some type of tantric elements in the work of Bhima Bhoi as original philosophy of Mahimā Dharma in contrast to the view of the Baba, she too shows the legacies. Eschmann else finds tantric elements in these works those are suppressed by the Baba and comments: “they truly represent a development and fulfillment of the medieval secret doctrine.” Though both the scholars have not offered their views in the context of dominance and hegemony, and even if they have not sufficiently considered the contexts that can explain how the ‘tantra’ or ‘medieval secret doctrine’ transmitted into the philosophy of Mahimā Dharma, theirs observations till have validity.
My uneasiness with the texts authored by Visvanath Baba is that I have no possible method that can validate the views of the Baba in true academic circle. We cannot, under general commonsense, imagine Mahima Gosain as some divine being and we cannot accept the concept like Viśuddha Hindudharma (pure Hinduism) in the sphere of academics and thinking. Many scholars have asked the question – whether Mahimā dharma provide reformation to Hinduism or it developed as a sectarian movement within the fold of Hinduism? What I perceive, using the word ‘Hindu’ or ‘Hinduism’ in the studies in history of South Asian religions itself is historically non-academic and linguistically anachronistic. The loosely coined term (or, you may say, umbrella term) ‘Hindu’ (that was derived from the Persian word for Sindh) as we use today is basically a 19th century construction by the Christian missionaries and imperial government for their need. Partly influenced by the colonialists, the right wing of nationalist agitators of colonial India tried to define this term. In true sense, we never had a uniform and unified religious tradition and there for a term to cover the varied systems of beliefs and social customs that prevailed in ancient and medieval India, which also defined the legally prescribed structure of society. In her own tradition of Indian subcontinent, the different religious currents are divided into three broad categories, namely, Vaidika, Grāmya and Āgama. Taking clue from such classification, we may divide Indian religions historically into three different (but not distinct) categories, that is to say, a) the Brahmanic religion including its different cults (mārgas), b) folk religions as a unified entry or folk and tribal religions and c) anti-Brahmanic religions including the founded and sectarian religions. We can place Mahimā Dharma in the third category due to its critical position on ritualism, Brahmanism and caste-hierarchy. Religions from Samaņa in Pali and Prakrit nomenclature, Āgama in Purānik nomenclature, Nirguņa and Nirguņa Vaiśnava in medieval nomenclature up to the 19th century Satnām Panth of Chhatisgarh, Balārām Panth of Bengal and Mahimā Dharma of Orissa, all need to be discussed under one head, i.e., anti-Brahmanic and anti-Vedic too. Denying of cast hierarchy and Brahmanical supremacy is common to all of them, whether manifest or latent. This is figured around a different type of religious concept, which is less or more contradictory to the Brahmanical notion of dharma, and aroused out of different socio-cultural, socio-economic and socio-political situations, in different phases of Indian history.
The works of the scholars, I have mentioned above, have both strengths and weaknesses. The problems with the work of Basu are that a) he lacks many factual data on Mahimā dharma, b) he was not exposed to the texts of Bhima Bhoi, c) he used a narrow and under-developed method for field research and d) the diversity of Indian religions and their mutual exclusiveness was beyond his knowledge. When Chittaranjan Das venture a criticism to Basu, though not systematically, he points out these limitations of the latter. But what Das himself lack that he uncritically accepts the Works of Visvanath Baba as authentic and historical. In real sense, Das too does not possess historical and field information on the dharma. While Basu’s main objective is to trace the lineage of the dharma, Das does not see any validity of such objective as he does not believe in cause and effect relationship. But can we believe an idea of something that comes out absolute zero? Perhaps that is not. Particularly in the case of Indian religion, there may not be lineage, but there are many legacies. Basu has taken a relevant problem, though he could not solve it. When Betina Bäumer finds some type of tantric elements in the work of Bhima Bhoi as original philosophy of Mahimā Dharma in contrast to the view of the Baba, she too shows the legacies. Eschmann else finds tantric elements in these works those are suppressed by the Baba and comments: “they truly represent a development and fulfillment of the medieval secret doctrine.” Though both the scholars have not offered their views in the context of dominance and hegemony, and even if they have not sufficiently considered the contexts that can explain how the ‘tantra’ or ‘medieval secret doctrine’ transmitted into the philosophy of Mahimā Dharma, theirs observations till have validity.
My uneasiness with the texts authored by Visvanath Baba is that I have no possible method that can validate the views of the Baba in true academic circle. We cannot, under general commonsense, imagine Mahima Gosain as some divine being and we cannot accept the concept like Viśuddha Hindudharma (pure Hinduism) in the sphere of academics and thinking. Many scholars have asked the question – whether Mahimā dharma provide reformation to Hinduism or it developed as a sectarian movement within the fold of Hinduism? What I perceive, using the word ‘Hindu’ or ‘Hinduism’ in the studies in history of South Asian religions itself is historically non-academic and linguistically anachronistic. The loosely coined term (or, you may say, umbrella term) ‘Hindu’ (that was derived from the Persian word for Sindh) as we use today is basically a 19th century construction by the Christian missionaries and imperial government for their need. Partly influenced by the colonialists, the right wing of nationalist agitators of colonial India tried to define this term. In true sense, we never had a uniform and unified religious tradition and there for a term to cover the varied systems of beliefs and social customs that prevailed in ancient and medieval India, which also defined the legally prescribed structure of society. In her own tradition of Indian subcontinent, the different religious currents are divided into three broad categories, namely, Vaidika, Grāmya and Āgama. Taking clue from such classification, we may divide Indian religions historically into three different (but not distinct) categories, that is to say, a) the Brahmanic religion including its different cults (mārgas), b) folk religions as a unified entry or folk and tribal religions and c) anti-Brahmanic religions including the founded and sectarian religions. We can place Mahimā Dharma in the third category due to its critical position on ritualism, Brahmanism and caste-hierarchy. Religions from Samaņa in Pali and Prakrit nomenclature, Āgama in Purānik nomenclature, Nirguņa and Nirguņa Vaiśnava in medieval nomenclature up to the 19th century Satnām Panth of Chhatisgarh, Balārām Panth of Bengal and Mahimā Dharma of Orissa, all need to be discussed under one head, i.e., anti-Brahmanic and anti-Vedic too. Denying of cast hierarchy and Brahmanical supremacy is common to all of them, whether manifest or latent. This is figured around a different type of religious concept, which is less or more contradictory to the Brahmanical notion of dharma, and aroused out of different socio-cultural, socio-economic and socio-political situations, in different phases of Indian history.
II
Contestation in Indian religions around dominance and resistance is based on the issue whether to take the Vedas as authorative or not. The Vedas are the basic corpus which is asserted as source of all knowledge both metaphysical and social in the Brahmanic tradition. The authors of Brahmanical texts such as Brāhmaņas, Dharmasutras, Smrutis and Purāņas, declaring themselves as the followers of Vedas prescribe to stick to the Vedic norms on society and religion. Taking the risk of over simplification, reference to the Vedas in these texts can be summarized as the points: a) where the question of varna and jāti hierarchy along with Brahmanic supremacy comes, b) where to perform religious rituals by households through the professional Brahman priests, and c) where to give gifts and alum to the Brahmans with due respect for mediatory role between the earthly people and gods.
The Puruşa Sukta in the 10th Maņđala of Ŕg Veda is frequently quoted in Brahmanical texts to support caste hierarchy, where it is speculated that Brāhmaņs, Kşhatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śudras originated respectively from the face, arms, thighs and feet of the Puruşa, the earliest divine being. Nowhere in this Veda, however, there is portrayal of social hierarchy and the word Śudra is repeated. It does not matter what the social status of Brāhmaņas and Śudras (the artisan and servant class) was during the Vedic period and what is the symbolic meaning of the Puruşa Sukta, but the Vedas were taken as authoritative texts in latter periods in the Brahmanic trend to sustain and reinforce socio-religious and socio-economic status of Brahmans along with hereditary social hierarchy, and to hence the Vedas are ascribed as source of knowledge. In the ritualistic tradition of Brahmanism and even in the philosophical reformation processes, the ‘knowledge’ perceived and advocated by others that is not present in the Vedas, has been frequently being alleged as impure, mere ignorance. The authority of Vedas and Brahmans, however, was not unchallenged in the history of Indian subcontinent, where other religious believes were in existence.
Due course of historical development of Brahmanism, however, the Vedas mattered a little in practical sense. Numerous gods and goddesses, having multiple identities were absorbed from the non-Vedic traditions and though assimilated with the Vedic rituals; they substituted and even altered the Vedic concept of divinity. Starting from the Gupta period, to reestablish the feudal hegemonic power structure of Brahmanism, it was a cultural compulsion for it to assimilate the fairly complex Vedic deities with (and even substitute by) the black complex non-Vedic folk and popular (such as Āgamas) gods and goddesses. Myths were absorbed from non-Vedic periphery or new myths were created. But yet after several phases of modification in Brahmanism, the Vedic mantras, rituals and norms still had been being quoted and referred in numerous Sanskrit texts starting from post-Buddhist era up to the late medieval age. The Vedas, hence, turned into the cultural symbol of dominance.
On the other hand, the anti-Vedic trend that developed within the side-lines of subordination built its own cultural symbol, something structured around the popular non-Vedic (folk) traditions. The commonness of socio-theological essence within Samaņa, Āgamas and Nirguņa traditions does not necessarily indicates that the latter are affiliated to the earlier, but they at least share the cultural symbol of resistance. Culture is, sociologically, the learned and symbolic aspects of society that transfers generation to generation through the social structures. In Indian society, historically we find many structures in terms of dominance and subordination in a dialectical position with each other. Their position, however, not fixed, but interchangeable with each other depending upon the nature of economy and politics of the society. On this ground, they have also been influencing each other, borrowing from each other; and hence, have been responsible in forming a complex equation of interrelation and inter-relativity.
Questioning the Vedic knowledge and its authority in the case of religious and social ideality is common to almost all heterodox dharmas in India. They have unanimously used the term nirveda to define believes, practices and whatever the philosophy they assert. Not respecting and condemning the Vedas is an ancient phenomenon in Indian history. In Pali, Prakrit and Tamil literature, we find the words Brāhmaņa and Samaņa (Śramaņa in Sanskrit) denoting two different traditions of religious beliefs and practices. While in the Brahmanical practice, as I have pointed out, the authority of Vedas is a most; in the Samaņa pool, the Vedas are never taken as authoritative texts, rather they are condemned in various ways. Despite of their differences with each other on philosophical ground, they were, in common, too critical to the Vedic values and morals. Along with the prominent Buddhism and Jainism, popular Samaņa schools like Anuvādina, Ājivika, Akriyāvādina and Keśakamalina had their preaching against the knowledge of the Vedas. Besides the Samaņa, earlier evidences of non-Vedic knowledge and practices come from the Āgama traditions. In general connotation, though the word ‘āgama’ refers to the tantra, in the particular use of Puranic and Sanskritic categorization of religious currents, the word means all the non-Brahmanic and non-Vedic religions (excluding the folk forms) as a generalized term. We have evidences that there has been tense between the Vedic and Āgama traditions (particularly Śaiva and Śākta tantra) in different phase of Indian history.
Nirveda in its own way, as understood by Āgama and Nirguņa tradition is the very concept of negating the Brahmanical doctrines those claimed textually or verbally, basically to strengthen and carry on the closed hereditary hierarchical social order of caste practice and other notions of the same category. I am not going in to the debate of how caste originate and whether it resembles with the social classes as super structure of Indian society or not, but I need to uphold the view that the force of dominant religion is one among the basic causes for sustaining effectiveness of caste. Despite of many theoretical weaknesses of Louis Dumont’s work, his understanding of concept of relative purity and pollution as the essence of caste practice in India is most valid one in compare to many other debates. The Weberian paradigm too suggests that when a social system fit to a particular type of religious idea, the latter helps in sustaining and reinforcing the earlier. Although the caste system most probably had taken its form from socio-economic development, the Brāhmaņas, Dharmasutras and Smrutis sufficiently inform us that it was imposed by the accepted knowledge/wisdom of religion (such as ‘divinity’) within the legal structure of society. The alternative schools of Indian religions just challenged that wisdom.
In the practice of caste, the endogamous groups those engage in the menial works are regarded as impure castes and are placed in the lower strata of the society. A Brahman or a person from a higher endogamous group becomes polluted when he/she comes in bodily contact with the so-called impure castes or does the menial works him/herself. He/(rarely she) can regain the purity through the ritual practice of purification of the body. This simply implies the very attachment of caste to the body, not to the soul. As a strong response to such perception/practice, in Āgama and Nirguņa tradition the body is taken as the abode for all gods/goddesses and the Supreme Being that questions the very claim of bodily impurity. In this tradition a particular type of bodily practice is advocated, where body becomes the locus of all the religious activities and the claim of bodily impurity is nullified. This is figured around the concept of ‘self-knowledge’ and the theoretical premise of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa, that is the belief of presence of the whole universe in the human body, or saying in the other way – it comprehends the micro-macrocosmic relation. The concept of ‘self-knowledge’ had the very strength to defy the notion of relative purity and pollution. Asserting or rejecting caste hierarchy or whatever the morals, archetype of knowledge that can sufficiently inform on the creation, the universe and the self, has been the necessary condition. That too has its historical context as a cultural phenomenon. We have pretty much examples of numerous non-Brahmanic Śaiva schools and tantric branches of Buddhist tree, those flourished in Indian subcontinent in early medieval age, came out with this specific theology of ‘self-knowledge’, i.e., the knowledge exist in the self body, not in the scriptures. Particularly, we can mark the Sahajayāna and the Nātha Pantha as the prominent exponent of this doctrine. Although philosophical speculation of self-knowledge is also exits in ancient Upanişadas and texts of different Mahāyāni Schools, it seems that the Sahajayānis and the Nāthas gave a practical orientation to this philosophy and established the theory of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa as a resistance to the Brahmanical perception. One of the earliest pronouncements regarding the divinity of body comes from Laksminkara, the female siddha of Sahajayāni order. She in her Āddyāsiddhi accentuates, ‘no suffering, no rites, no bathing, no purification, nor other established norms are necessary, nor do you need to bow before the images of gods those are constructed out of wood, stone or mud, you should, however, with concentration offer worship to your own body, where all gods resides.’ Similarly, Saraha Pa emphasizes, ‘scholars explain many scriptures, but fail to know that Buddha resides in own body.’ Other Sahajiyā siddhas like Lui Pa, Kanhu Pa, Hadi Pa, Tanti Pa etc. strongly recommended their disciples to stick on to the body. The Sahajiyās imagined different Chakras and Padmas in human body and believed that uplifting the kuņđalini (vital air) up to the highest chakra (talukā manđala) through sahasrirā would lead to the path for Boddichitta or the void, which is the ultimate reality. The sahajiyās ultimately proclaimed the doctrine of Sahaja that is the realization of Śunya, the non-dual essence, through different bodily practices, seemingly is the dual sexo-yogic practice, which they claimed to be the easiest and simplest way for the said spiritual realization. Though the sexo-yogic practice was secret and not revealed for the non-initiated, the Sahajiyā openly contested the social norms of morals and ethics, which they considered as exclusively Brahmanical. It seems they faced serious challenges from the Brahmanic religion, which led to doctrinal adjustment and gave birth to the Nātha Pantha.
In the Nātha literature, promulgation of centrality of body is found too, where the Siddhas repeatedly use the terms ‘Piņđa-Brahmāņđa’ and ‘kāyā-sādhanā’. Most probably Gorekh Nath, believed to be the founder of Nātha Pantha and a well recognized Siddha in the Sahajiyā tradition, has coined this term. Some of the myths around Gorekh Nath and his guru Maccyendra or Machchinder Nath (alternatively known as Jalandhari Nath) symbolify that Gorekh was a siddha in sahajayāni order in his earlier career and he revised and redefined some of the theological perception of the yāna and found Nātha Pantha. Whatever it may be, in Nātha pantha the Supreme Being is imagined as Siva, it is also otherwise known as Śunya and Śunya Niranjan and Alekha and Alekha Niranjan. The yoga, in the Nātha Pantha, is known as ultā or olatā sādhanā, which involve the yogic exercise that produces a regressive movement in the bodily process for the retention of the bindu or śukra (semen) and preventing its waste. It can be easily marked that prevention of śukra is the only point, where the Nāthas revise the Sahajayāni concept of sahaja sukha. However, they yet use the term sahaja to define their practice of yoga, as it is the simpler way of realization of Śunya or Siva, in compare to the ritualistic idolatry found in the dominant religion, the Brahmanism. Starting from famous five of the 16th century up to Divakara, Dwaraka, Chaitanya and Arakhita, all Orissan Santha those professed to be Vaiśnava, else had given much importance to the body and bodily practice (Kāyā-Sādhanā) and the theories of anti-ritualism. Balaram Das, for instance, declares, ‘what is known as the grand temple, is nothing but your body.’ Like this, Dwaraka Das expresses, ‘all chanting, rituals and pilgrimages are meaningless, all the arrays of gods and goddess are nothing but illusion. Search the Nirākāra Śunya in your body, you will ultimately find it.’ I do not need to cite more example, as we can find such concept in all the works of all the seemingly Vaiśnavas. Not only in Orissa, but also in different parts of India, during the medieval age, all the saints, regarded as Nirguņ, unanimously stick on to the doctrine of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. The nirguņ sants of north India along with the apparently Vaishnva and semi-Vaiśnavas of non-Chaityana group in Bengal very vigorously propagated this theory. In 19th century, Balārām Panth of Bengal too emphasized the body as the locus of sādhanā.
The Puruşa Sukta in the 10th Maņđala of Ŕg Veda is frequently quoted in Brahmanical texts to support caste hierarchy, where it is speculated that Brāhmaņs, Kşhatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śudras originated respectively from the face, arms, thighs and feet of the Puruşa, the earliest divine being. Nowhere in this Veda, however, there is portrayal of social hierarchy and the word Śudra is repeated. It does not matter what the social status of Brāhmaņas and Śudras (the artisan and servant class) was during the Vedic period and what is the symbolic meaning of the Puruşa Sukta, but the Vedas were taken as authoritative texts in latter periods in the Brahmanic trend to sustain and reinforce socio-religious and socio-economic status of Brahmans along with hereditary social hierarchy, and to hence the Vedas are ascribed as source of knowledge. In the ritualistic tradition of Brahmanism and even in the philosophical reformation processes, the ‘knowledge’ perceived and advocated by others that is not present in the Vedas, has been frequently being alleged as impure, mere ignorance. The authority of Vedas and Brahmans, however, was not unchallenged in the history of Indian subcontinent, where other religious believes were in existence.
Due course of historical development of Brahmanism, however, the Vedas mattered a little in practical sense. Numerous gods and goddesses, having multiple identities were absorbed from the non-Vedic traditions and though assimilated with the Vedic rituals; they substituted and even altered the Vedic concept of divinity. Starting from the Gupta period, to reestablish the feudal hegemonic power structure of Brahmanism, it was a cultural compulsion for it to assimilate the fairly complex Vedic deities with (and even substitute by) the black complex non-Vedic folk and popular (such as Āgamas) gods and goddesses. Myths were absorbed from non-Vedic periphery or new myths were created. But yet after several phases of modification in Brahmanism, the Vedic mantras, rituals and norms still had been being quoted and referred in numerous Sanskrit texts starting from post-Buddhist era up to the late medieval age. The Vedas, hence, turned into the cultural symbol of dominance.
On the other hand, the anti-Vedic trend that developed within the side-lines of subordination built its own cultural symbol, something structured around the popular non-Vedic (folk) traditions. The commonness of socio-theological essence within Samaņa, Āgamas and Nirguņa traditions does not necessarily indicates that the latter are affiliated to the earlier, but they at least share the cultural symbol of resistance. Culture is, sociologically, the learned and symbolic aspects of society that transfers generation to generation through the social structures. In Indian society, historically we find many structures in terms of dominance and subordination in a dialectical position with each other. Their position, however, not fixed, but interchangeable with each other depending upon the nature of economy and politics of the society. On this ground, they have also been influencing each other, borrowing from each other; and hence, have been responsible in forming a complex equation of interrelation and inter-relativity.
Questioning the Vedic knowledge and its authority in the case of religious and social ideality is common to almost all heterodox dharmas in India. They have unanimously used the term nirveda to define believes, practices and whatever the philosophy they assert. Not respecting and condemning the Vedas is an ancient phenomenon in Indian history. In Pali, Prakrit and Tamil literature, we find the words Brāhmaņa and Samaņa (Śramaņa in Sanskrit) denoting two different traditions of religious beliefs and practices. While in the Brahmanical practice, as I have pointed out, the authority of Vedas is a most; in the Samaņa pool, the Vedas are never taken as authoritative texts, rather they are condemned in various ways. Despite of their differences with each other on philosophical ground, they were, in common, too critical to the Vedic values and morals. Along with the prominent Buddhism and Jainism, popular Samaņa schools like Anuvādina, Ājivika, Akriyāvādina and Keśakamalina had their preaching against the knowledge of the Vedas. Besides the Samaņa, earlier evidences of non-Vedic knowledge and practices come from the Āgama traditions. In general connotation, though the word ‘āgama’ refers to the tantra, in the particular use of Puranic and Sanskritic categorization of religious currents, the word means all the non-Brahmanic and non-Vedic religions (excluding the folk forms) as a generalized term. We have evidences that there has been tense between the Vedic and Āgama traditions (particularly Śaiva and Śākta tantra) in different phase of Indian history.
Nirveda in its own way, as understood by Āgama and Nirguņa tradition is the very concept of negating the Brahmanical doctrines those claimed textually or verbally, basically to strengthen and carry on the closed hereditary hierarchical social order of caste practice and other notions of the same category. I am not going in to the debate of how caste originate and whether it resembles with the social classes as super structure of Indian society or not, but I need to uphold the view that the force of dominant religion is one among the basic causes for sustaining effectiveness of caste. Despite of many theoretical weaknesses of Louis Dumont’s work, his understanding of concept of relative purity and pollution as the essence of caste practice in India is most valid one in compare to many other debates. The Weberian paradigm too suggests that when a social system fit to a particular type of religious idea, the latter helps in sustaining and reinforcing the earlier. Although the caste system most probably had taken its form from socio-economic development, the Brāhmaņas, Dharmasutras and Smrutis sufficiently inform us that it was imposed by the accepted knowledge/wisdom of religion (such as ‘divinity’) within the legal structure of society. The alternative schools of Indian religions just challenged that wisdom.
In the practice of caste, the endogamous groups those engage in the menial works are regarded as impure castes and are placed in the lower strata of the society. A Brahman or a person from a higher endogamous group becomes polluted when he/she comes in bodily contact with the so-called impure castes or does the menial works him/herself. He/(rarely she) can regain the purity through the ritual practice of purification of the body. This simply implies the very attachment of caste to the body, not to the soul. As a strong response to such perception/practice, in Āgama and Nirguņa tradition the body is taken as the abode for all gods/goddesses and the Supreme Being that questions the very claim of bodily impurity. In this tradition a particular type of bodily practice is advocated, where body becomes the locus of all the religious activities and the claim of bodily impurity is nullified. This is figured around the concept of ‘self-knowledge’ and the theoretical premise of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa, that is the belief of presence of the whole universe in the human body, or saying in the other way – it comprehends the micro-macrocosmic relation. The concept of ‘self-knowledge’ had the very strength to defy the notion of relative purity and pollution. Asserting or rejecting caste hierarchy or whatever the morals, archetype of knowledge that can sufficiently inform on the creation, the universe and the self, has been the necessary condition. That too has its historical context as a cultural phenomenon. We have pretty much examples of numerous non-Brahmanic Śaiva schools and tantric branches of Buddhist tree, those flourished in Indian subcontinent in early medieval age, came out with this specific theology of ‘self-knowledge’, i.e., the knowledge exist in the self body, not in the scriptures. Particularly, we can mark the Sahajayāna and the Nātha Pantha as the prominent exponent of this doctrine. Although philosophical speculation of self-knowledge is also exits in ancient Upanişadas and texts of different Mahāyāni Schools, it seems that the Sahajayānis and the Nāthas gave a practical orientation to this philosophy and established the theory of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa as a resistance to the Brahmanical perception. One of the earliest pronouncements regarding the divinity of body comes from Laksminkara, the female siddha of Sahajayāni order. She in her Āddyāsiddhi accentuates, ‘no suffering, no rites, no bathing, no purification, nor other established norms are necessary, nor do you need to bow before the images of gods those are constructed out of wood, stone or mud, you should, however, with concentration offer worship to your own body, where all gods resides.’ Similarly, Saraha Pa emphasizes, ‘scholars explain many scriptures, but fail to know that Buddha resides in own body.’ Other Sahajiyā siddhas like Lui Pa, Kanhu Pa, Hadi Pa, Tanti Pa etc. strongly recommended their disciples to stick on to the body. The Sahajiyās imagined different Chakras and Padmas in human body and believed that uplifting the kuņđalini (vital air) up to the highest chakra (talukā manđala) through sahasrirā would lead to the path for Boddichitta or the void, which is the ultimate reality. The sahajiyās ultimately proclaimed the doctrine of Sahaja that is the realization of Śunya, the non-dual essence, through different bodily practices, seemingly is the dual sexo-yogic practice, which they claimed to be the easiest and simplest way for the said spiritual realization. Though the sexo-yogic practice was secret and not revealed for the non-initiated, the Sahajiyā openly contested the social norms of morals and ethics, which they considered as exclusively Brahmanical. It seems they faced serious challenges from the Brahmanic religion, which led to doctrinal adjustment and gave birth to the Nātha Pantha.
In the Nātha literature, promulgation of centrality of body is found too, where the Siddhas repeatedly use the terms ‘Piņđa-Brahmāņđa’ and ‘kāyā-sādhanā’. Most probably Gorekh Nath, believed to be the founder of Nātha Pantha and a well recognized Siddha in the Sahajiyā tradition, has coined this term. Some of the myths around Gorekh Nath and his guru Maccyendra or Machchinder Nath (alternatively known as Jalandhari Nath) symbolify that Gorekh was a siddha in sahajayāni order in his earlier career and he revised and redefined some of the theological perception of the yāna and found Nātha Pantha. Whatever it may be, in Nātha pantha the Supreme Being is imagined as Siva, it is also otherwise known as Śunya and Śunya Niranjan and Alekha and Alekha Niranjan. The yoga, in the Nātha Pantha, is known as ultā or olatā sādhanā, which involve the yogic exercise that produces a regressive movement in the bodily process for the retention of the bindu or śukra (semen) and preventing its waste. It can be easily marked that prevention of śukra is the only point, where the Nāthas revise the Sahajayāni concept of sahaja sukha. However, they yet use the term sahaja to define their practice of yoga, as it is the simpler way of realization of Śunya or Siva, in compare to the ritualistic idolatry found in the dominant religion, the Brahmanism. Starting from famous five of the 16th century up to Divakara, Dwaraka, Chaitanya and Arakhita, all Orissan Santha those professed to be Vaiśnava, else had given much importance to the body and bodily practice (Kāyā-Sādhanā) and the theories of anti-ritualism. Balaram Das, for instance, declares, ‘what is known as the grand temple, is nothing but your body.’ Like this, Dwaraka Das expresses, ‘all chanting, rituals and pilgrimages are meaningless, all the arrays of gods and goddess are nothing but illusion. Search the Nirākāra Śunya in your body, you will ultimately find it.’ I do not need to cite more example, as we can find such concept in all the works of all the seemingly Vaiśnavas. Not only in Orissa, but also in different parts of India, during the medieval age, all the saints, regarded as Nirguņ, unanimously stick on to the doctrine of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. The nirguņ sants of north India along with the apparently Vaishnva and semi-Vaiśnavas of non-Chaityana group in Bengal very vigorously propagated this theory. In 19th century, Balārām Panth of Bengal too emphasized the body as the locus of sādhanā.
III
What Mahimā Dharma bears structurally in the 19th century Orissa is the symbolic continuity of cultural resistance. Mahimā Dharma inherited it through the cultural trend that was already existed in the geographical stretch of Orissa or in the Eastern India. Here too the archetype of knowledge is a necessary condition and have clear historical context in the processes of engrossing myths and symbols. In other words – Mahima Gosain, the founder of Mahimā Dharma, indeed did not conceive any new ideology for his followers; pretty enough he put the previously existing strands of socio-cultural dissent together and fashioned them into the cultural logic of time and space. Surface continuities and changes in social institutions, however, historically shaped the logics of the dharma. By the process many new logics emerged those took decisive role on how the moral stand of the dharma would be appropriated.
Abundance of materials found in the primary texts of Mahimā Dharma, written by Bhima Bhoi, where the concept of ‘self-knowledge’ is a prime concern. Apart from concluding each philosophical text with such concept and randomly inserting the conception in Bhajanas and Chautiśā, Bhima Bhoi has devoted a whole text entitled Ādianta Gita (literary means, the Dialogue on Beginning and End) to emphasize this perception. This text consists in a form of dialogue between Jiva and Parama, the human being and the Supreme, where the Parama explains to Jiva how the human body is a micro representation of the whole universe and how it is the real abode for the all pervading omniscient Śunya, the Void. Each chapter of this text, for instance, ends with the statement, ‘E piņđa brahmāņđa sakhi go ekamata’ (Darling, this body and the universe is indifferent). If we need more examples, we may quote from Brahma Nirupaņa Gitā, where he avows: ‘the knowledge of brahma (the supreme being) is in the body, like the water exists inside the green coconut’; or in Śrutinişedha Gitā, while discarding the ritualism, he says: not recognizing the Brahma in the body, people wonder outside. Jagannatha resides in this body. It is worthless to worship the idols, they are dry wood, and they cannot take you to the heaven. Not knowing Ghata-brahma, i.e. Brahma in the human body, worshiping the idol is only the false believe.’ What we find from these citations that the body is the central focus, the locus where everything can be found and integrated.
Other philosophical concepts constituting the worldview of Mahimā Dharma are also constructed around the philosophy of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. The proper noun Brahma (the Supreme Being) and the adjectives for it, such as, Śunya (the void), Nirguņa (having no quality), Alekha (beyond writing), Anādi (having no beginning and end), Aņākāra (shape, beyond the concept of affirmation), Nirveda (beyond the Vedas) etc. as found in the primary texts, all have their connection directly or indirectly with the ‘self-body’. In these texts, Brahma or the Supreme Being is basically imagined as the complete Void and is also beyond any regular concepts such as essence or affirmation, but due to its omnipresence, it can ultimately revealed through the self-body. These texts prescribe some type of bodily practice for revelation of Brahma that is variably termed as Śunya Sādhanā, Nirveda Sādhanā and Astānga yoga. The way of sādhanā prescribed, consist controlling the breath and uplifting the vital air in regressive order to the tālukā śikhra (top of forehead) in the direction of nivrtti or rest from pravriti or activities particularly for retention of vindu or śukra (semen). In Nirveda Sādhanā, Mahima Gosain prescribes his first disciple Govinda to go through Śunya sādhanā at Balasinga of Bouda for the revelation of the Brahma. In the creation myth narrated in this text, Nirākāra Vishnu, one of the earliest creations of the Brahma, himself practices such exercise for the revelation of Supreme Being and also advices his sons Siva, Vishnu and Brahmā to adhere to the body for getting knowledge of the Supreme. This sādhanā particularly required, as it is described, for the prime necessity of creation and sustention of the living world, and too for well being of the men and women.
The ‘knowledge’ of the body, the sādhanā for revelation of the knowledge about the Brahma and self and the Brahma itself, altogether affirmed as nirveda in the text authored by Bhima Bhoi. This term, as I have already stated, have the connotation of ‘beyond Vedas’. Bhima Bhoi asserts that the Vedas and śāstras (symbolize the Brahmanical texts or texts in the line of Vedas) fail to know the Brahma, rather they misguide the people in terms of fasting, rituals, offering sacrifice and visiting to sacred places. In Brahmanirupana Gitā he severely condemns the Vedas, Vedic knowledge and the people those assert the Vedas as source of knowledge. What he says that the Vedas can tell up to the Ţhula Śunya (macrocosm), but they have no idea about the microcosmic knowledge. Again to repeat, he avows that the real microcosmic knowledge exists in the body, not in the Vedas or Brahminical text.
Abundance of materials found in the primary texts of Mahimā Dharma, written by Bhima Bhoi, where the concept of ‘self-knowledge’ is a prime concern. Apart from concluding each philosophical text with such concept and randomly inserting the conception in Bhajanas and Chautiśā, Bhima Bhoi has devoted a whole text entitled Ādianta Gita (literary means, the Dialogue on Beginning and End) to emphasize this perception. This text consists in a form of dialogue between Jiva and Parama, the human being and the Supreme, where the Parama explains to Jiva how the human body is a micro representation of the whole universe and how it is the real abode for the all pervading omniscient Śunya, the Void. Each chapter of this text, for instance, ends with the statement, ‘E piņđa brahmāņđa sakhi go ekamata’ (Darling, this body and the universe is indifferent). If we need more examples, we may quote from Brahma Nirupaņa Gitā, where he avows: ‘the knowledge of brahma (the supreme being) is in the body, like the water exists inside the green coconut’; or in Śrutinişedha Gitā, while discarding the ritualism, he says: not recognizing the Brahma in the body, people wonder outside. Jagannatha resides in this body. It is worthless to worship the idols, they are dry wood, and they cannot take you to the heaven. Not knowing Ghata-brahma, i.e. Brahma in the human body, worshiping the idol is only the false believe.’ What we find from these citations that the body is the central focus, the locus where everything can be found and integrated.
Other philosophical concepts constituting the worldview of Mahimā Dharma are also constructed around the philosophy of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. The proper noun Brahma (the Supreme Being) and the adjectives for it, such as, Śunya (the void), Nirguņa (having no quality), Alekha (beyond writing), Anādi (having no beginning and end), Aņākāra (shape, beyond the concept of affirmation), Nirveda (beyond the Vedas) etc. as found in the primary texts, all have their connection directly or indirectly with the ‘self-body’. In these texts, Brahma or the Supreme Being is basically imagined as the complete Void and is also beyond any regular concepts such as essence or affirmation, but due to its omnipresence, it can ultimately revealed through the self-body. These texts prescribe some type of bodily practice for revelation of Brahma that is variably termed as Śunya Sādhanā, Nirveda Sādhanā and Astānga yoga. The way of sādhanā prescribed, consist controlling the breath and uplifting the vital air in regressive order to the tālukā śikhra (top of forehead) in the direction of nivrtti or rest from pravriti or activities particularly for retention of vindu or śukra (semen). In Nirveda Sādhanā, Mahima Gosain prescribes his first disciple Govinda to go through Śunya sādhanā at Balasinga of Bouda for the revelation of the Brahma. In the creation myth narrated in this text, Nirākāra Vishnu, one of the earliest creations of the Brahma, himself practices such exercise for the revelation of Supreme Being and also advices his sons Siva, Vishnu and Brahmā to adhere to the body for getting knowledge of the Supreme. This sādhanā particularly required, as it is described, for the prime necessity of creation and sustention of the living world, and too for well being of the men and women.
The ‘knowledge’ of the body, the sādhanā for revelation of the knowledge about the Brahma and self and the Brahma itself, altogether affirmed as nirveda in the text authored by Bhima Bhoi. This term, as I have already stated, have the connotation of ‘beyond Vedas’. Bhima Bhoi asserts that the Vedas and śāstras (symbolize the Brahmanical texts or texts in the line of Vedas) fail to know the Brahma, rather they misguide the people in terms of fasting, rituals, offering sacrifice and visiting to sacred places. In Brahmanirupana Gitā he severely condemns the Vedas, Vedic knowledge and the people those assert the Vedas as source of knowledge. What he says that the Vedas can tell up to the Ţhula Śunya (macrocosm), but they have no idea about the microcosmic knowledge. Again to repeat, he avows that the real microcosmic knowledge exists in the body, not in the Vedas or Brahminical text.
IV
We need to note that being semi-henotheist and semi-monotheist in essence, Mahimā Dharma did not questioned the cosmic existence of the gods and goddesses of the Brahmanic pantheon or of other popular spheres, rather the dharma disapproved any loyalty to them and placed them in lowly and subordinate strata in the cosmic order. The dharma’s special concern was with Mahadeva Siva and Jagannath. Both culturally and metaphysically the dharma’s own cultural legacy was rooted in the Śaiva Āgama, which had carried on a long term resistance to the dominant religious view and social system thereof. Although, unlike the Nāthas, the henotheist Nirguņas of Eastern India and eventually the Mahimā Dharma do not perceive Siva as the Supreme Being, unanimously in this tradition, Siva’s adjectives such as Nirguņa and Nirveda and more specifically proper nouns such as Śunya and Alekha used for the Brahma. In the narratives like Tulabhiņa of Jagannath Das, Śunya Samhitā of Achyutananda Das, Śunya Purāņ (Bengali) of Ramai Pandit, Vishnugarbha Purana of Chaitanya Das and Nirveda Sādhanā of Bhima Bhoi, Siva is found as a yogi who practices the bodily sādhanā for revelation of the Śunya within him. Neither in the Orissan Nirguņa tradition nor in the Mahimā Dharma is Siva ever underestimated. Siva’s association in the process of creation is decisively recognized in the creation myth of Mahimā Dharma. Moreover, Mahima Gosain himself was attached to the temple of Mahadeva at the Kapilash Hill in his early religious carrier. But interestingly enough, worshiping of Siva, even in any symbolic form, was completely prohibited for followers of the dharma. In Bhima Bhoi’s Śrutinişedha Gitā, such stand is justified by charging the deity with wrong doings and moral irresponsibility. The Dharma’s such position on Siva is if taken as double standard, we would lose the points of cultural logics produced and reproduced during different phases of contesting hegemony. It is important to note here that even though scholars till far believe that Shiva is a Vedic god; the finding of Pāsupata in Indus Civilization, condemnation to falus (Linga) worship in Rig Veda, symbolizing the Brātas or worshiper of Rudra as people of impure ethnicity, special attachment of non-Aryan tribes (like Śavara, Pulinda, Kirāta) and anti-Vedic Asuras with Shiva in Purānas and epics, Shiva’s sketch as a peasant in folk tales- myths-celebration of whole eastern India, his identity as creator in different tribal (such as Kondh, Bhunjiā and Pahariā) myths, his presence among the trio of the Gond as Lingādeo, presence and importance of non-Brahman priests (especially non-Aryan tribes) in numerous Shiva temple in different parts of Indian subcontinent, Shiva’s central position in anti-Vedic Āgama traditions like Lingāyata, Lokāyata, Pāśupata, Nātha etc. – altogether proves Shiva’s non-Vedic and non-Brahmanic origin. When in some of the earlier phases of cultural resistance, the folk deity Mahadeva/Siva was represented by the subaltern leadership as symbolic Supreme Being, in the subsequent phases the deity lost cultural significant in creating counter hegemony to Brahmanism since his position had been largely absorbed by the latter circle. Yet in the inter-phase of transformation from Āgama to Nirguņa, the cultural legacy was still intact in the metaphysical level, but socially not significant enough. Mahima Gosain was, perhaps, conscious about of triviality of Saivism in constructing a resisting platform in the 19th century Orissa, though he himself carried on the legacy basically through alternative myths and narratives.
More importantly, while the earlier Santhas (Nirguņa) of Orissa were more or less attached to the temple of Jagannath at Puri and idientified the deity with the Śunya, Mahimā Dharma’s resistance to Brahmanical morality radically proliferated in challenging the very existence of Jagannath in the grand temple by rejecting the idols just as dry wood which followed-on the supplementary logic of transforming the deity into a disciple of Mahima Gosain. In Bhima Bhoi’s Nirveda Sādhanā, Jagannath is found as Govinda Das, the first disciple of the Gosain. In the poetic justice of Bhima Bhoi, the real Jagannath left the temple just to follow the Gosain when the drastic Kaliyuga approached the earth. As per the text, after the transformation of Jagannath into Govinda Das, what found in the grant temple as idols is nothing else but dry wood, useless and no divine goal can be served by them. Perhaps such cultural metaphor practically articulated in an incident in 1881, when a group of Mahimā Dharmis from the then district of Sambalpur vigorously attacks the Jagannath temple at Puri, obviously to burn down the idols.
The above cultural logic of Mahimā Dharma needs to be understood in term of structural dominance of Brahmanism that grew around the cult of Jagannath and had reached to its height by the mid 19th century in Orissa. Till the 16th century the deity at Puri was yet Maha-Śunya and Maha-Bodhi, which proves existence of non-Brahmanical morality, especially that of Nirguņa in the temple. But the Nirguņa tradition around the temple or elsewhere in Orissa got gradual setback after the contesting Vaishnavism of Chaitanya entered to the scenario through royal patronage of Prataprudra Deva.
Despite of the following facts: (a) that the Chaitanya faith was drawn upon the popular residue of tantra that was a radical resisting religious force of the land in an earlier period, (b) that caste was not a matter to follow Chaitanya or to be a devotee of Sri Krishna and (c) the Brahmanical ritualism was not a requirement for the devotion in the faith; the faith itself never contested with the caste morality of Brahmanism. By the time of Chaitanya, some of the relics of tantra had transformed into black magic, some was mostly absorbed by the Brahmanical circle and was fascinated into non-resisting paradigms and a few of the elements was intact in the alternative religious current of marginal people. Chaitanya faith never engrossed the religions of the marginal people. The divine love suggested by Chaitnya, in reality, was a form of non-resisting residue of tantra that had nothing to do with an alternative social order. This is one side of the picture. In the other side, the caste liberality which is upheld by many as something revolutionary, did work in the faith for a non-remarkable short phase. Within few decades of the death of Chaitanya, caste was systematically introduced in the sampradaya as well it becomes more orthodox with the cannon written by the goswāmis of Vrindabana. Along with, the followers demarcated themselves as Goudiya Vaiśnavas (Vaiśnavas by high-caste or followers of Chaitanya faith; technically, high Vaiśnavas) and the other as jat Vaiśnavas (Vaiśnavas by low-caste or deviants; technically, low Vaiśnavas). Incorporation of Brahmanical scriptures subsequently became a feature of the faith. Relatively we may see the heavy attachment of the goswāmis with the Jagannath temple at Puri, which perhaps consequently made the temple a strong hold of Brahmanical morality or at a minimum level, left no space for the sustenance and growth of anti-Brahmanic morality around the temple and in periphery. Correspondingly, plethora of Krishna bhakti kāvyas in Oriya literature written in between mid 16th and 19th century those were drawn upon the duality in devotion of Chaitanya and scriptural sophistication of the goswāmis, did something like calming down the resisting religious current and hijacking the subaltern strands.
With the arrival of Chaitanya, Vaisnavism culminated at Puri which had started sometime around the 12th century. As a result, the gńyānamārga (path of knowledge) or alternatively Śunya-marga (path of void) of the Nirguņas in Orissa got a drastic jolt. We have marked that the Nirguņa gńyānamārgis inherited anti-Brahmanic essence of Sahajayani tantra through the Nātha Panthis. On this particular aspect they had been being derogatively identified as crypto-Buddhists by the Brahmanical circle from an earlier time. Now the followers of Chaitanya joined with the Brahmans in condemning the gńyānamārgis. In the situation of complex aggravation, the latter group came under something like political compulsion to partly compromise with the Chaitanya faith that was quite contradictory to their own view. Perhaps they were conscious about legends of royal atrocities on the apparently Buddhists (most probably Sahajayānis) due to the conspiracy of Brahmans. Historically the alternative stand to Brahmanism never got an open space where there existed the Raja-Brahman nexus. Therefore, almost all sahajayanis, tantric Śaivas and other in the Āgama tradition kept their doctrine secret under deep mysticism. Their doctrine, specifically the knowledge of the body was revealed for few dependable initiated disciples only. The gńyānamārgis as well continued the technique of mysticism. In addition, outwardly they fashioned their way as Vaishnavism as if there was no contradiction with the Chaitanya faith; but in their inner way of sādhanā, they stuck around the doctrine of nirveda and Piņđa-Brahmāņđa as revealed from hundreds of texts authored by them. In other words, the Nirguņas still contested with the Brahmanical circle as well with the popular Chaitanya cult, but they could not openly appropriate their own faith. Latter Nirguņas of Orissa, therefore, detached themselves from the grand temples. Many of them established their tungis far away from the religious capital.
By the 19th century the cult of Jagannath was not centric to the coastal belt only, rather it had spread to the hinterland in a gradual process after the 16th century. This was followed by the disintegration of the regional empire in Orissa due to Afghan, Mughal and Maratha acquisition of the province. In the changed circumstances the Gajapati of Puri lost political power and subsequently his authority was reduced to a mere Zamindar of few estates. The most fertile costal tract came under the direct control of central authority, while the less fertile hilly and forest tract was given to the local Rajas on basis of a nominal annual tribute. Garjats, the little territories of the local Rajas was autonomous in internal matter though the Rajas did not have private property right. Many of the local Rajas were of obscure origin. During this stage they gradually aspired somewhat like authentication of their political position and legitimization of their social status. At the same time, due to minimization of authority of Gajapati and continuous attack on the temple of Jagannath, the Brahman population of the costal belt not finding enough patronage in that region made their slow plight to the hinterland. The Rājās of Garjats welcomed and sponsored them as they started composing Rāja Puranas (myths of the origin of the Rājās) narrating the Rājās as superior beings sent by the god to legitimize their status to rule over people. The Rajas too inspired to build temples for Jagannath at their capital as a ‘symbol of kinship and royal authority’. More Brahmans from the costal tracts were invited for priesthood in the temples. The migrated Brahmans were provided with ample tax-free fertile lands as brahmottara (gift to the Brahmans) for their service along with other gifts.
Even though there was earlier Brahman settlement in all over the interior region and they were patronized in the courts and temples of the local rulers, their dominance in the cultural affair was limited. Almost all rulers in these regions had patronized the local tribal goddess and in many places appointed the tribal priests and even elevated the goddesses to the position of Eşta Devis (tutelary deities). With the migration of Utkaliya Brahmans to the Garjats along with the cult of Jagannath through royal patronage, structural dominance of Brahmanical morality ever grew in the interior tract of Orissa which was once upon a time dominated by aboriginal tribes. Such process further accelerated during the colonial rule in 19th century, when even the zamindārs, middlemen like thekādārs and village headmen like gauńtiās built temples for Jagannath and extended the patronage to Brahmans in their localities and villages.
Repudiating Jagannath, hence, was a strong response to the structural dominance of Brahmanical morality that grew with the changes in socio-political and socio-economic institutions all over the geographical stretch of Orissa. By the 19th century Jagannath itself had become the symbol for Raja-Brahman nexus. Mahimā dharma’s resistance to Brahmanical morality, therefore, further reflected in its cultural confrontation with the nexus by promulgating that both Raja and Brahmans are sinners and extending its stand to some service castes like dhobā and bhandāri those were supporting components in the feudal hegemony in the sense of structure, though socio-economically they comprised the subaltern strata.
More importantly, while the earlier Santhas (Nirguņa) of Orissa were more or less attached to the temple of Jagannath at Puri and idientified the deity with the Śunya, Mahimā Dharma’s resistance to Brahmanical morality radically proliferated in challenging the very existence of Jagannath in the grand temple by rejecting the idols just as dry wood which followed-on the supplementary logic of transforming the deity into a disciple of Mahima Gosain. In Bhima Bhoi’s Nirveda Sādhanā, Jagannath is found as Govinda Das, the first disciple of the Gosain. In the poetic justice of Bhima Bhoi, the real Jagannath left the temple just to follow the Gosain when the drastic Kaliyuga approached the earth. As per the text, after the transformation of Jagannath into Govinda Das, what found in the grant temple as idols is nothing else but dry wood, useless and no divine goal can be served by them. Perhaps such cultural metaphor practically articulated in an incident in 1881, when a group of Mahimā Dharmis from the then district of Sambalpur vigorously attacks the Jagannath temple at Puri, obviously to burn down the idols.
The above cultural logic of Mahimā Dharma needs to be understood in term of structural dominance of Brahmanism that grew around the cult of Jagannath and had reached to its height by the mid 19th century in Orissa. Till the 16th century the deity at Puri was yet Maha-Śunya and Maha-Bodhi, which proves existence of non-Brahmanical morality, especially that of Nirguņa in the temple. But the Nirguņa tradition around the temple or elsewhere in Orissa got gradual setback after the contesting Vaishnavism of Chaitanya entered to the scenario through royal patronage of Prataprudra Deva.
Despite of the following facts: (a) that the Chaitanya faith was drawn upon the popular residue of tantra that was a radical resisting religious force of the land in an earlier period, (b) that caste was not a matter to follow Chaitanya or to be a devotee of Sri Krishna and (c) the Brahmanical ritualism was not a requirement for the devotion in the faith; the faith itself never contested with the caste morality of Brahmanism. By the time of Chaitanya, some of the relics of tantra had transformed into black magic, some was mostly absorbed by the Brahmanical circle and was fascinated into non-resisting paradigms and a few of the elements was intact in the alternative religious current of marginal people. Chaitanya faith never engrossed the religions of the marginal people. The divine love suggested by Chaitnya, in reality, was a form of non-resisting residue of tantra that had nothing to do with an alternative social order. This is one side of the picture. In the other side, the caste liberality which is upheld by many as something revolutionary, did work in the faith for a non-remarkable short phase. Within few decades of the death of Chaitanya, caste was systematically introduced in the sampradaya as well it becomes more orthodox with the cannon written by the goswāmis of Vrindabana. Along with, the followers demarcated themselves as Goudiya Vaiśnavas (Vaiśnavas by high-caste or followers of Chaitanya faith; technically, high Vaiśnavas) and the other as jat Vaiśnavas (Vaiśnavas by low-caste or deviants; technically, low Vaiśnavas). Incorporation of Brahmanical scriptures subsequently became a feature of the faith. Relatively we may see the heavy attachment of the goswāmis with the Jagannath temple at Puri, which perhaps consequently made the temple a strong hold of Brahmanical morality or at a minimum level, left no space for the sustenance and growth of anti-Brahmanic morality around the temple and in periphery. Correspondingly, plethora of Krishna bhakti kāvyas in Oriya literature written in between mid 16th and 19th century those were drawn upon the duality in devotion of Chaitanya and scriptural sophistication of the goswāmis, did something like calming down the resisting religious current and hijacking the subaltern strands.
With the arrival of Chaitanya, Vaisnavism culminated at Puri which had started sometime around the 12th century. As a result, the gńyānamārga (path of knowledge) or alternatively Śunya-marga (path of void) of the Nirguņas in Orissa got a drastic jolt. We have marked that the Nirguņa gńyānamārgis inherited anti-Brahmanic essence of Sahajayani tantra through the Nātha Panthis. On this particular aspect they had been being derogatively identified as crypto-Buddhists by the Brahmanical circle from an earlier time. Now the followers of Chaitanya joined with the Brahmans in condemning the gńyānamārgis. In the situation of complex aggravation, the latter group came under something like political compulsion to partly compromise with the Chaitanya faith that was quite contradictory to their own view. Perhaps they were conscious about legends of royal atrocities on the apparently Buddhists (most probably Sahajayānis) due to the conspiracy of Brahmans. Historically the alternative stand to Brahmanism never got an open space where there existed the Raja-Brahman nexus. Therefore, almost all sahajayanis, tantric Śaivas and other in the Āgama tradition kept their doctrine secret under deep mysticism. Their doctrine, specifically the knowledge of the body was revealed for few dependable initiated disciples only. The gńyānamārgis as well continued the technique of mysticism. In addition, outwardly they fashioned their way as Vaishnavism as if there was no contradiction with the Chaitanya faith; but in their inner way of sādhanā, they stuck around the doctrine of nirveda and Piņđa-Brahmāņđa as revealed from hundreds of texts authored by them. In other words, the Nirguņas still contested with the Brahmanical circle as well with the popular Chaitanya cult, but they could not openly appropriate their own faith. Latter Nirguņas of Orissa, therefore, detached themselves from the grand temples. Many of them established their tungis far away from the religious capital.
By the 19th century the cult of Jagannath was not centric to the coastal belt only, rather it had spread to the hinterland in a gradual process after the 16th century. This was followed by the disintegration of the regional empire in Orissa due to Afghan, Mughal and Maratha acquisition of the province. In the changed circumstances the Gajapati of Puri lost political power and subsequently his authority was reduced to a mere Zamindar of few estates. The most fertile costal tract came under the direct control of central authority, while the less fertile hilly and forest tract was given to the local Rajas on basis of a nominal annual tribute. Garjats, the little territories of the local Rajas was autonomous in internal matter though the Rajas did not have private property right. Many of the local Rajas were of obscure origin. During this stage they gradually aspired somewhat like authentication of their political position and legitimization of their social status. At the same time, due to minimization of authority of Gajapati and continuous attack on the temple of Jagannath, the Brahman population of the costal belt not finding enough patronage in that region made their slow plight to the hinterland. The Rājās of Garjats welcomed and sponsored them as they started composing Rāja Puranas (myths of the origin of the Rājās) narrating the Rājās as superior beings sent by the god to legitimize their status to rule over people. The Rajas too inspired to build temples for Jagannath at their capital as a ‘symbol of kinship and royal authority’. More Brahmans from the costal tracts were invited for priesthood in the temples. The migrated Brahmans were provided with ample tax-free fertile lands as brahmottara (gift to the Brahmans) for their service along with other gifts.
Even though there was earlier Brahman settlement in all over the interior region and they were patronized in the courts and temples of the local rulers, their dominance in the cultural affair was limited. Almost all rulers in these regions had patronized the local tribal goddess and in many places appointed the tribal priests and even elevated the goddesses to the position of Eşta Devis (tutelary deities). With the migration of Utkaliya Brahmans to the Garjats along with the cult of Jagannath through royal patronage, structural dominance of Brahmanical morality ever grew in the interior tract of Orissa which was once upon a time dominated by aboriginal tribes. Such process further accelerated during the colonial rule in 19th century, when even the zamindārs, middlemen like thekādārs and village headmen like gauńtiās built temples for Jagannath and extended the patronage to Brahmans in their localities and villages.
Repudiating Jagannath, hence, was a strong response to the structural dominance of Brahmanical morality that grew with the changes in socio-political and socio-economic institutions all over the geographical stretch of Orissa. By the 19th century Jagannath itself had become the symbol for Raja-Brahman nexus. Mahimā dharma’s resistance to Brahmanical morality, therefore, further reflected in its cultural confrontation with the nexus by promulgating that both Raja and Brahmans are sinners and extending its stand to some service castes like dhobā and bhandāri those were supporting components in the feudal hegemony in the sense of structure, though socio-economically they comprised the subaltern strata.
V
We have fairly large amount of materials, which are quoted frequently by scholars and popular writers, show that Mahimā Dharma was critical about dominant religious and social ideality, particularly Brahmanical supremacy, caste practice, ritualism and religious taboos on women. It is else a common trend in almost all anti-Vedic religions in India. In none of the religious traditions in India, where the body and anti-Vedic knowledge have given due importance, caste hierarchy and Brahmanical norms are supported. They all are critical on this ground. The propagators and followers of such dharmas predominantly, though not exclusively, belonged to the lower strata of the society. The concept of god among them is something contradictory to that of Brahmanism. Hence, whatever we see as the social dynamics of Mahimā Dharma was the symbolic effectiveness of the perspective knowledge of self-body with other extended logics.
Mahima Gosain, as the sole founder, himself formulated and enumerated the ideological perspective of Mahimā Dharma around the cultural metaphor of nirveda and pinđa-brahmānđa, which was particularly drawn upon his own cultural experience. The Gosain assigned Bhima Bhoi to compose text on the basis of the same metaphor as a bundle of theories or philosophy and hence it is obvious to found them in the works of Bhima Bhoi. Anti-Brahmanic consciousness and concept of social equality in the works of Bhima Bhoi is the reflection of his perception of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa that gained through training. The Gosain perhaps had too taught the theory and the particular way of sadhana to some other desciples as it is evident from the story of Govinda Baba narrated in Nirveda Sadhana. But it seems that the Gosain stick to the tradition by revealing the knowledge to only few disciples whom he thought eligible. Or he did reveal the theory for all initiated, but the theoretical whole of the dharma could neither articulated socio-culturally nor became prolific enough due to certain reasons. The populace that was targeted by Mahima Gosain as potential followers had no previous experience in cultural and socio-political contestation with Brahmanical structure, though they were subjugated by the latter. It is because of the fact that during the time none of the alternative socio-religious strands had any visible existence in the society; rather those were in dying situation in the marginal sphere of Guru and Śiśhya in the form of secrecy and mysticism. Hence the dominant morality regarding caste and other social practice was in full effect modus operandi and modus vivendi on the subjugated and subaltern mass. Both exclusively and inclusively, the consciousness of the subaltern mass was bound to perceive the Brahmanical ethics and morality as something sacred that comes from the source of knowledge or wisdom as it was shaped by the same ethics due to dominance. It can be seen as intellectual subordination. Therefore, they could not perceive the theoretical base of the dharma. Rather their perception concentrated around the age-old inducing concepts like divine origin of the Gosain, the Kaliyuga cricis and Kalki Avatāra, which were sufficient to drape the central concern of the dharma.
I have repeatedly stated that Bhima Bhoi faithfully brought forward the concept of knowledge of Body that was learned from his guru. But it does not means that the poet had perceived the resisting soul of his dharma in the same way as it was laid by the guru and the earlier Nirguņapanthis. Divinity of Mahima Gosain may not be the handy work of Bhima Bhoi, but he too fashioned the Gosain as someone of divine origin, the Śunya Puruşa as well the real Kalki Avatāra who can save the innocent mass from the drastic Kaliyuga crisis. In between the dilemma of the philosophy of Śunya and the guru as Śunya himself, I may point out that we find many contradictory, cluttered, blurred and something very naïve constructions in the works of Bhima Bhoi. But for our purpose such complexity and naïveté in these works matters a lot since it is basically for the fact that in the cultural context of Mahimā Dharma, Bhima Bhoi is the ‘other person’ who was just assigned by his guru to disseminate the doctrines of the dharma. Culturally Bhima Bhoi had no share in any historical ground of the cultural struggle around the hegemonic structure. Ethnically, (being a Kondh by tribe) Bhima Bhoi’s cultural inheritance was rooted in the folk religion(s), where the concept like veda or nirveda had no role.
We are informed by the available records that the dharma had many thousand followers during the 19th century, but no record confirms us that socio-religious solidarity or cohesion of any other type on the basis of any morality among the followers could establish. The Gosain, who had already secured popularity and respect at Kapilash by serving the pilgrims visiting to the shrine of Mahadeva and helping in regaining health of the sick people by taking special care of them, after enacting the new faith in the then tributary state of Dhenkanal in between fifth and sixth decade of 19th century, succeeded in gaining more and more devotion from the people, especially those are from the subaltern strata, preliminary in central and eastern Orissa and then, in a vast stretch. Very shortly he became able to initiate many thousands of in his faith both in lay and ascetic orders. Later on, his ascetic disciples being assigned to circulate his doctrine, travelled locality to locality for the purpose of spreading of the dharma. The seemingly liberal religious policy of the colonial government to some extend provided scope for free movement of the Gosain concomitantly their subordination in the Brahmanical religious order and socio-economic suffering led thousands people to follow the new faith; but the belief in the immortal divinity of Mahima Gosain was another factor for the increasing popularity of the dharma. When the Gosain died in 1875, therefore, many followers dropped their confidence and returned to their previous faith again. Organized conspiracies of the people from the upper strata of society of course have the role, but such conspiracy succeeded largely due to the absence of any theoretical whole in the perception of the followers. Furthermore, contestation within the ascetic order of the dharma grew just after the death of Mahima Gosain, which led to the bifurcation into two sects of ascetics on the simultaneous grounds of: (a) whether to ordain bakkaļa (bark) of kumbhi (Careya arboria) tree or kaupina (saffron waist cloth) and (b) whether to maintain rank among the ascetics on the basis of religious experience. Nothing ideological confrontation was there behind the bifurcation. In western part of present day Orissa, however, even after the death of Mahima Gosain the popularity of the dharma multiplied till the end of the century, most probably for the active role of Bhima Bhoi, the tribal poet. But in the social indication end, in the very nature, there as well the dharma gradually centered around the divinity of the poet, not on the cultural logic of resistance.
It is not surprising that, therefore, after Bhima Bhoi the concept Piņđa-Brahmāņđa or Nirveda is found in none of the works written by the insiders. Neither the ethno-historical materials I have consulted nor anyone in my ethnographical fieldworks also uphold such conception. Visvanath Baba or any other insider of the dharma nowhere supplies a bit of information of the perception. Along with, what we see, resistance to Brahmanical domination and caste hierarchy or whatever the phenomena within it, as well found absent both in behavioral and textual tradition of the dharma in post-Mahima Gosain and post-Bhima Bhoi period. And therefore, in the 20th century and after we find Mahima Dharma centered on mere astha, lost all the vigorousness of resistance. How the symbolic structures within the Dharma in its many forms rapidly changed and adopted adjustment with the dominant cultural trends worth mentionable. But this paper has no scope to go up to that extend.
(I thank Mr. Kedar Mishra for rendering immense help during fieldwork and data collection on Mahima Dharma, Prof. P. C. Pattnaik for his supervision and all possible kindness during my research on Mahima Dharma at Delhi University and Dr. Sudhir K. Sahu for his valuable suggestions and participation with me in handling the complexity of history of religion and culture. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Prashant K. Pradhan, who is a prime cause in all ways behind this paper.)
Note: End notes and references to this paper will be added latter.
My posts on marketing: BusinessKrafts Blog
My other posts are on Startups, Entrepreneurship and Marketing (Mostly in Hindi)
Mahima Gosain, as the sole founder, himself formulated and enumerated the ideological perspective of Mahimā Dharma around the cultural metaphor of nirveda and pinđa-brahmānđa, which was particularly drawn upon his own cultural experience. The Gosain assigned Bhima Bhoi to compose text on the basis of the same metaphor as a bundle of theories or philosophy and hence it is obvious to found them in the works of Bhima Bhoi. Anti-Brahmanic consciousness and concept of social equality in the works of Bhima Bhoi is the reflection of his perception of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa that gained through training. The Gosain perhaps had too taught the theory and the particular way of sadhana to some other desciples as it is evident from the story of Govinda Baba narrated in Nirveda Sadhana. But it seems that the Gosain stick to the tradition by revealing the knowledge to only few disciples whom he thought eligible. Or he did reveal the theory for all initiated, but the theoretical whole of the dharma could neither articulated socio-culturally nor became prolific enough due to certain reasons. The populace that was targeted by Mahima Gosain as potential followers had no previous experience in cultural and socio-political contestation with Brahmanical structure, though they were subjugated by the latter. It is because of the fact that during the time none of the alternative socio-religious strands had any visible existence in the society; rather those were in dying situation in the marginal sphere of Guru and Śiśhya in the form of secrecy and mysticism. Hence the dominant morality regarding caste and other social practice was in full effect modus operandi and modus vivendi on the subjugated and subaltern mass. Both exclusively and inclusively, the consciousness of the subaltern mass was bound to perceive the Brahmanical ethics and morality as something sacred that comes from the source of knowledge or wisdom as it was shaped by the same ethics due to dominance. It can be seen as intellectual subordination. Therefore, they could not perceive the theoretical base of the dharma. Rather their perception concentrated around the age-old inducing concepts like divine origin of the Gosain, the Kaliyuga cricis and Kalki Avatāra, which were sufficient to drape the central concern of the dharma.
I have repeatedly stated that Bhima Bhoi faithfully brought forward the concept of knowledge of Body that was learned from his guru. But it does not means that the poet had perceived the resisting soul of his dharma in the same way as it was laid by the guru and the earlier Nirguņapanthis. Divinity of Mahima Gosain may not be the handy work of Bhima Bhoi, but he too fashioned the Gosain as someone of divine origin, the Śunya Puruşa as well the real Kalki Avatāra who can save the innocent mass from the drastic Kaliyuga crisis. In between the dilemma of the philosophy of Śunya and the guru as Śunya himself, I may point out that we find many contradictory, cluttered, blurred and something very naïve constructions in the works of Bhima Bhoi. But for our purpose such complexity and naïveté in these works matters a lot since it is basically for the fact that in the cultural context of Mahimā Dharma, Bhima Bhoi is the ‘other person’ who was just assigned by his guru to disseminate the doctrines of the dharma. Culturally Bhima Bhoi had no share in any historical ground of the cultural struggle around the hegemonic structure. Ethnically, (being a Kondh by tribe) Bhima Bhoi’s cultural inheritance was rooted in the folk religion(s), where the concept like veda or nirveda had no role.
We are informed by the available records that the dharma had many thousand followers during the 19th century, but no record confirms us that socio-religious solidarity or cohesion of any other type on the basis of any morality among the followers could establish. The Gosain, who had already secured popularity and respect at Kapilash by serving the pilgrims visiting to the shrine of Mahadeva and helping in regaining health of the sick people by taking special care of them, after enacting the new faith in the then tributary state of Dhenkanal in between fifth and sixth decade of 19th century, succeeded in gaining more and more devotion from the people, especially those are from the subaltern strata, preliminary in central and eastern Orissa and then, in a vast stretch. Very shortly he became able to initiate many thousands of in his faith both in lay and ascetic orders. Later on, his ascetic disciples being assigned to circulate his doctrine, travelled locality to locality for the purpose of spreading of the dharma. The seemingly liberal religious policy of the colonial government to some extend provided scope for free movement of the Gosain concomitantly their subordination in the Brahmanical religious order and socio-economic suffering led thousands people to follow the new faith; but the belief in the immortal divinity of Mahima Gosain was another factor for the increasing popularity of the dharma. When the Gosain died in 1875, therefore, many followers dropped their confidence and returned to their previous faith again. Organized conspiracies of the people from the upper strata of society of course have the role, but such conspiracy succeeded largely due to the absence of any theoretical whole in the perception of the followers. Furthermore, contestation within the ascetic order of the dharma grew just after the death of Mahima Gosain, which led to the bifurcation into two sects of ascetics on the simultaneous grounds of: (a) whether to ordain bakkaļa (bark) of kumbhi (Careya arboria) tree or kaupina (saffron waist cloth) and (b) whether to maintain rank among the ascetics on the basis of religious experience. Nothing ideological confrontation was there behind the bifurcation. In western part of present day Orissa, however, even after the death of Mahima Gosain the popularity of the dharma multiplied till the end of the century, most probably for the active role of Bhima Bhoi, the tribal poet. But in the social indication end, in the very nature, there as well the dharma gradually centered around the divinity of the poet, not on the cultural logic of resistance.
It is not surprising that, therefore, after Bhima Bhoi the concept Piņđa-Brahmāņđa or Nirveda is found in none of the works written by the insiders. Neither the ethno-historical materials I have consulted nor anyone in my ethnographical fieldworks also uphold such conception. Visvanath Baba or any other insider of the dharma nowhere supplies a bit of information of the perception. Along with, what we see, resistance to Brahmanical domination and caste hierarchy or whatever the phenomena within it, as well found absent both in behavioral and textual tradition of the dharma in post-Mahima Gosain and post-Bhima Bhoi period. And therefore, in the 20th century and after we find Mahima Dharma centered on mere astha, lost all the vigorousness of resistance. How the symbolic structures within the Dharma in its many forms rapidly changed and adopted adjustment with the dominant cultural trends worth mentionable. But this paper has no scope to go up to that extend.
(I thank Mr. Kedar Mishra for rendering immense help during fieldwork and data collection on Mahima Dharma, Prof. P. C. Pattnaik for his supervision and all possible kindness during my research on Mahima Dharma at Delhi University and Dr. Sudhir K. Sahu for his valuable suggestions and participation with me in handling the complexity of history of religion and culture. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Prashant K. Pradhan, who is a prime cause in all ways behind this paper.)
Note: End notes and references to this paper will be added latter.
My posts on marketing: BusinessKrafts Blog
My other posts are on Startups, Entrepreneurship and Marketing (Mostly in Hindi)
My other posts are one Healthcare Offers
