from the margins, February 2002

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


Soul'd Out and In: Repre.sentation of body, no-body, male, female etc. in the 'Hindu'(?) philosophy
Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay


ya srsti srasturadya bahati bidhihutam ya hovirya co hatri ye dve ka/am bidhattah sruti-visaya-guna ya sthlta vyapya visuam. yamahuh saruabhutahprkrtiriti yaya pranina pranauantah .•... abhijnana sakuntaJam.

• Before going on to discuss representation of "body" in the (what is perceived today as) Hindu texts, let us start with a comment from Foucault because we cannot perform anything without a saheb - saheb is our priorself, our ganapati, the holy starting point Foucault said, "On the one hand the societies - and they are numerous: China, Japan, India, Rome, the Arabo-Moslem societies - which endowed themselves with an ars erotica. In the erotic art, truth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice and accumulated as experienc.e; pleasure is not considered in relation to an absolute law of the permitted and the forbidden, nor by reference to a criterion of utility, but first and foremost in relation to itself;" (1978/90:57). • I don't think that at least in (the politico-administrative and metaphysical totality called) India, as far as my knowledge is concerned, we can generalize like this. There is no absolute ars erotica as such which is drawn from pleasure alone without any reference to absolute law. Foucault is.constructing an oriental space that is merged only in erotica without any VIolent (penetration of) science! It is, in fact, a softer version of old oriental discourse. It is almost saying like, "We (white) have science and you (blacks) have arts ... ». • Foucault differentiates between the two spaces of science and arts; he is not generalizing ... in fact he does not find any thing positive when he says that Western civilization possesses only science: "On the face of it at least, our civilization possesses no ars erotica. In return, it is undoubtedly, the only civilization to practice a sdentia sexuolis; or rather, the only civilization to have developed over the centuries procedures for telling the truth of sex which are geared to a form of knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret;" (ibid, 58).
• The author is linguist, Linguistic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, KoIkata.

• In case of the meta-geopolitical entity called India as well, I must say or I may deploy the same statement: "the amy civilization to have developed over the centuries procedures for telling the truth of sex which are geared to a form of knowledge-power strictly fHffi1- opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret." Notice that I have erased the "only" and "not", because western civilization is not the "only" civilization that developed such a thing and furthermore, there is fte dividing line between art and science in each and every space and time. We also have the procedures of telling the truth of "sex" (in the sense of Foucault} and techniques of self care in our own way in our literature, architecture, and in sastras like Kamasutra and Yoga darsana or in numerous treatises on sexual management (especially in smritisastras). Did Foucault-saheb have the knowledge of "our" way of tetling the truth of sex through kala and uidya (cf. Bandyopadhyay, 2000) before commenting on "our" domain? Did he know how did "we" categorize "our" domain of knowledge(s)? How dare he taxonom!ze a vast world of China, Japan, India, Rome, and the Ambo-Moslem societies without apparently knowing anything about it? Furthermore, he found traces of ars erotica in the white space: "scientia sexualis versus ars erotica, no doubt. But it should be noted that the ars erotica did not disappear altogether from Western civilization; nor has it always been absent from the movement by which one sought to produce a science of sexuality." (ibid, 70) Western civilization possesses both these two and we have only one. Foucault himself is constructing a grand-narrative and he is keeping up the artscience dividing practice without any hesitation. • It must be noted here that Foucault rectified himself in an interview. When the interviewer questioned him regarding the difference between western science of sexuality and oriental ars erotica, Foucault said, "One of the numerous points where I was wrong in that book was what I said about this ars erotica. I should have opposed our science of sex to a contrasting practice of our own culture." (Rabinow, 1984: 347-48). He then should give the title of the book as "The Western History of Western Sexuality". However, it prevails that you are knowledgeable enough about the Indian/Hindu scientia sexualis. Please tell me about this in reference to absolute law, confessions, care of self as well as about act-pleasuredesire embedded in the concept of sex or srngara in the Indian context. • India is not at all a homogenous space and I do not know the vast plurality of concepts, attitudes regarding sex(-uality) of the people(s) living within this geopolitical area, And that does not necessarily also tally with those components/attributes of sexuality given by you following Foucault. Therefore, I may tell you something about (what is today termed as) "Hindu" concept of "sex" as per my limited knowledge. I'll start with the concept of body, but there are many bodies - and even


from the margins,





Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


no-bodies' (sometimes subject to reincarnation) in Hindu thought: medical body, varna or female and male body, darsanika-body, pouranika body, kama-body, bad body (sariraka) and many other bodies. The first question is: how these bodies are em-bodied? How did bodies take their shape? • Even India is a body - a female body - Sati's (Mother Goddess, Siva's Wife) body-parts are scattered all over India - these female organs are worshipped in different (almost 51) Indian tirthas. This proves our age-old integration as a body-state. However, I think, before going to discuss Hindu concepts of sex, you have to purify your body. You know that without purifying your OWn sariTa or body, you can't open the file of Hindu sastras. First of all, you must initiate yourself through the process of upanayana(the holy thread ceremony of brahmin), the first step to caturasrama (four stages of life). You must have. as a brahmin, performed that holy thread ceremony before your adolescence as you know that without being a brahmin, you do not have the right to open the sastras. • Well, I remember that ceremony. After that ceremony, I was taught to think of three types of woman at the moment of silently chanting gayatrimantra (a secret psalm in the name of the mother Gayatri). This much I remember, as I was fully obsessed with the bodies of those women at the age of 12/13 itself. Kakar (1981:128) said Hindu brahmins suffer narcissistic wound as an after effect of this ceremony as it initiates a dependency on the supreme male or brahman. What Kakar does not notice, is this obsession with the figure of three types of women at the time of brahmacaryo (a stage of life when sexual austerity is practiced). Secondly, it is also a puzzling question why we should imagine three types of woman, at the time of worshipping this supreme male called brahman. At one phase, He (Sanskrit soh as in so'hom, 'he is 1') is male, and He is also a neuter (Sanskrit tat, as in tatvamasi, 'It is also you') gender. • O.K., Let's start puja and the pujo starts with purification of the body of the worshipper. (I am writing a paper now. Writing "scientific (?) Paper" is also a ritualized puja and it is to be non-contaminated by the evil spirits, but that's fIet a different story.) The male worshipper not only purifies himself but also purifies his habitat, his surroundings. Even he should protect himself from evil ghosts (bhuta-prda-pisaca-raksasa-danaua-different types of no-bodies: demons, evil spirits, ghosts, the "other" non-Aryan inhabitants) by offering them masabhaktouaIi (a type of ritual sacrifice with a symbolic red color that is to be poured into a clay dish).
1 When Iam using the word "no-body", Ihave many semantic conjectures in my mind. Nobody is (a) Brahman, who does not possess body (d. "sarlXJtopanipodam tat sarvatohksl siromukham sauato srutimalloke saruamabrta tisthati" -Gita); (b) bhuta (spirit or extraterrestrial body), who does not possess physique, but possesses shadow of the physique. (c)the anyallratas(others), who, though they possess body, were categorized as non-humans (so-called non-eryans, the ancient inhabitants): pisaca, roksasa etc.

• I am curious about the term bhuto. I have to perform bhutasuddhi (purification of the five gross elements like earth, water, fire, wind and sky by which my body is constituted) after masabhaktauali. The word bhuta means "ghosts, spirits" in the masabhaktavali, but it also means "five gross elements" of sthulasarira or gross body in the bhutasuddhi and in the philosophical discourses. The simple interpretation is that bhuta is a polysemous word with two meanings. • I think, initially this is not only a problem of polysemy. This word is differentiated in purana and darsana. You find bhuta in the sense of spirit (no-body) in the purana and the gross material elements of the body in the darsana, though puranas use bhuta in both the senses. But this problem of polysemy inaugurates the threshold between purana and darsana. • Nirad C. Choudhury (Cited in Sanya!, 1980;23) noticed this. He maintained that the main hindrance for understanding Hindu Philosophy is its contamination by purana. According to Choudhury's positivism, if we look at darsana through purana, it would distort the darsana. That is, if we read darsana by codifying it with the spectacular purana, we would misunderstand the basics of darsana. As for example, like bhuta, we have words like atman or atma which, means "self" in dorsano and ghost in the pumna. In course of interpreting Hindu texts, we have to make this differentiation as clear as possible. • I can't help but quote Nietzsche in this context of ambiguous ghost! no-body or self. For Nietzsche, due to the coercive disciplinary technology of control and "normalization" (the reader may notice the Foucauldian rephrasing!) the instincts are blocked: " ... all instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn tnward - this is what I call internalization of man first developed what was later called his 'soul"'(1956:220,emphasis added). Nietzsche's argument is that this gives birth to a masochist interpretation of self that resulted in the moral consciousness. My argument is not only confined to the moral question of the reflexive self, but the internalization of threat and violence, which constructs the authenticated "soul". I want to mean that the concept of atman or soul was born out of internalization, the darsanika paraphrasing of this spiritual soul is contextfree atman (that is beyond the control smriti or constitution composed by Manu[s], i.e., to the Hindus, there is a smriti-controUed self in contrast with darsanika-construction of self) or self. And existence of this atman was also denied through the Buddhist doctrine of anatma or nalratma (it is a negation of no-body).


• And this philosophers' construction of context-free atman or self was popularly paraphrased as alma or ghost. This darsanika-construction of self can be achieved through kurma-sadhana or tortoise-meditation of tantriks and bauls. One could withdraw oneself from the outside sociality and could take refuge in the shell of a tortoise by the way of meditation, i.e., taking


from the margins; February 2002 concept of god is not at all, contestable (proof).

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


shelter under the secure jacket of a tortoise-shellf Few persons, one in a million, know this procedure of tortoise-withdrawal. {Bhattacharya, K, 1982:3}. • That is, inner-body or no-body as well as material body - all are part of the complex game of the Hindus. The problem is how these two inner-body and no-body - have become embodied in darsana and purana with different and complex paraphrases. In the realm of worship, these two concepts were amalgamated. This amalgamation also occurs in case of bhuta in the context of puja. In fact, puja is a fact, where double meaning of purana and darsana is constituted. One can take either of the meanings .... • Therefore, it entails that there is a provision for context-free atman or selfhood together with context-sensitive self in Indian society! Contextfree selfhood occurs (at least as an imagined construction) in our context also. Your enunciation refutes the notion that India is a place for only context-sensitive selfhood or there is no place for the indiu/dual in our society. India is a diuiduals' society, where only the we-self prevails. We have seen in the Vedantas, all the jil1atmans or persons are merged with the paramatmans, the supreme context-free transcendental self or trans/no-body. • I don't think that we can generalize Likethis. Context-free selfhood is an imagined construct - a historical a priori born out of internalization. I am only concerned with the mechanism of such a construction. In Indian Philosophy, the context-free selfhood or the transcendental self has a special place for discussion in different forms. That's interesting. I do not subscribe to those scholars, who do not find the attempts to construct "context-free self" in India. However, let me remind you that our puja is intenupted by this discussion. We have to perform that puja. By the way, whom we are worshipping? God or Goddess? Or the famous siva phallus with the vagina. Do you notice, that, in the icon of sil1alimga, penis (that is symbolized as phallus) penetrates the vagina and what we have worshipped is an inner body - we are within the womb of that lady at the moment of intercourse. Our position is within the body of the mother and we Jove to see the penis of our father, when women are pouring white milk (semen?) upon the symbolic penis. • As far as I know you are an atheist. I can't stop laughing at the moment when you are so eager to perform puja. What happens to you? Do you want to be part of that U.G.C.project that wants to introduce pourohitya at the UG/PG-level? • Oh, no! I want to understand the disciplinary technology as well as the management of this performance of puja that is supposed to link my gross body to the extra-terrestrial no-body. I want to know how my body takes its shape due to the fusion of purusa {male} and praloti(mother nature). I want to switch over to samkhya cosmology as well as ontology. Do you know that samkhya darsana does not believe in god? They say that the

illicit) due to lack of


• Not only samkhya, major Indian Philosophical schools do not believe in god. These systems strictly oppose the pouranika concept of gods and goddesses. Now I want to hear what are you saying about the birth of the gross material body of the jiva or person. • Let's start with the male-female distinction as it is found in samkhya Philosophy" This all-pervasive He-She distinction is a dualism of ultimate principle, viz., purusa (Male, henceforth M) and mulaprakrti (Female or primordial mother nature, henceforth F). When inactive M comes (as a catalyst) in contact with fertile/generative/productive (prasauadharmin, only female can biologically produce progeny) primordial unmanifested (auyakta, U) materiality F, the pradhana or main cause or mother of all effects, the manife,sted (vyakta, V) world is born. The intercourse between M and F gives birth to the subtle phallic body (Iimgasarira) and later on that subtle psychic (as it contains antahkaranah) body is transformed into the gross material body (sthulasarira) of person (j1va). And iiva (according to Radhakrishnan's sexist interpretation "Every jiua is potentially purusa, every man is potentially divine." 1923:323, emphasis added) is endowed with their Father's name, the name of E More explicitly, due to contact with the subtle body, M has become consumer (bhokta) of F's act. (Vedantacancu, One of the main causes behind choosing samkhya is that it is the efigil'l, S61:1ree of almost aU the common traits of Hindu cosmological concept as is evident from Sashibhushan Dasgupta's following comments. Readers may be benefited by from this lucid representation of Samkhya idea. "Though, however, the theory of the female counterpart of the original lord in connection with cosmogony may be traced back even to the days of the Upanisads, this idea as found in the puranic literature as also in the vernacular literature seems to have been influenced more by popular Samkhya ideas. Notwithstanding the controversies of the philosophers as to the exact nature of purusa and prakrti and the exact relation between them, the general view isthat the whole creation proceeds from prakrti (or the primordial cosmic substance) in contact with purusa, who is the unchanging principle of pure consciousness. Though some schools of Samkhya hold that creation proceeds from thE! spontaneous disturbance in the equllibrium of the three qualities in prakrti, the more general view is that the creative impulse is supplied to prakrti by purusa through his contact just as active power is supplied to inactive iron by magnet through its contact (sannidhya). Through the association or the contact of purusa with prakrti the character of the one is infused in the other and the creative process followsas a result of the process of infusion. From this philosophical idea of purusa and prakrti and the infusion of the character 01 the qne into the other in the process of creation as followedthe popular tendency to conceive of purusa as the male and of prakrti as the female and of their contact as their union, through which proceeds the visible world. It may be remarked that philosophers also have sometimes taken the analogy of the male and the female in explaining the nature> of and the relation between purusa and prakrti." (192.3:329·30)

188 from the margins, February 2002 1901:147) M has become dependant (D) due to such contact with kscira (field, cf. obvious relationship with the fertility cult) F That is, dependant M is independent (I) M plus the subtle body or phallic body (Limgasya anibritte, one cannot differentiate between subtle body and the M in this context. Ibid: 227). The subtle body Jives in M's semen. At the time of menstruation, . the semen of M is mingled with the blood of F, thus jiva or person is produced. (ibid:199)'you may notice that the representation of He-She is a crucial element of this cosmology as well as ontology or the worldview of the samkhya-text writers. Everything is interpreted as M-F intercourse: jananm paril1amanam, mithuTlQm sahacaryam (ibid, 105) reproduction is the end product and sexual intercourse is the co-occurrence of M and F. To summarize, inactive/passive. and catalyst 1M has become DM, when He is coming in contact with UF Due to such contact, UF has become VF and produced Vwotld of jivas endowed with body .... • Your interpretation is too naive. The word purusa does not refer to any male and prokrt; is not female at all. On the other hand, these two words refer to conscious-ness and matter or external object respectively. M is soul, consciousness (cit), and inactive spectator of F's act. It is also the Unchanging stable subject. In the light of this M, we are seeing the act of unconscious material nature or active prakrti, which is evolved under the influence of M. Please consult M.onier~Wltliams' Sanskrit English dictionary, (1899, page 637), in this regard. The lexical entry purUSQ dearly shows the masculinity of M. And F, in the samkhya text, is merely reduced to matter, though paradoxically that non-being matter is active. Sayana Madhava compares F's unconscious activity with the involuntary secretion of milk from the mother's breast. As mother is involuntarily producing milk for the sake of her child, F acts unconsciously for the sake of M's renunciation (ct. Iconographic representation of siva,. sucking the breast of wife tara after siua consumed the poison at the time of churning the ocean in the Tarapith temple of West Bengal). This materiality of zombie F reminds me the Hindu marriage cerernony, where the bride is handed over (sampradanam) to the bridegroom by the bride's father just like non-being matter along with other materials like money, domestic utensils, gold ornaments etc. The male receptor accepts her with desire (kama or eros) .only.. It is also surprising to note that that a desirous psalm is also used in the context of gifting a cow to a brahmin in the sraddha-ceremony (the ceremony where spirits[preta] deceased persons are worshipped as invisible corporal presence, not as no-bodily absence). The brahmin receptor accepts the cow with the same psalm. When the receptor is accepting the bride in a non-reciprocal reception, he must purify different (secret) body-parts of the bride as F is (conceptually) always impure. The bridegroom, th.ough he purifies his own body, has the great responsibility of purifying the bride's body. •

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


• The similes or metaphors of male-female do not work at all as far as samkhya texts are concerned. Therefore, I have strong objections to your translation of limga as phallus as limga (mark, sign, emblem) refers to hetu or cause in the naiyayika literature. You are strictly no! allowed to interpret it as male-female as that would disturb the matter-consciousness as well as object-subject dualism. What yo~ are tenning as "intercourse" is nothing but a fusion of consciousness (cit, puruSQ) and matter(prakrti). • Radhakrisnnan aptly pointed out this problem. He said, "The perplexing point of the Samkhya system is the problem of the relation between purusa and prakrti." (1923: 287) To me it is simply a problem of power semantics (where meaning is MANeuvered by the power-knowledge nexus. We will see, in our ongoing discussion that the tension of meanings of M and F is derived from such nexus). However, Radhakrishnan is the main modern culprit for such confusion, as he often refers to M and F as He and She. He sometimes used neuter "it" and some times "she"/ "her" to refer prakrti. • Whatever may be the English rendering of Radhakrishnan, you may investigate original Sanskrit texts to eradicate your confusion. You may grammatically find out the use of particular gender in those texts. • That's difficult as the Sanskrit gender system does not always depend on the differences of sex (e.g. kolatro "wife" in Sanskrit is a neuter gender, rk is feminine gender), instead it is list-governed and though there is agreement between head-modifier, there is no gender-agreement between head and verb. (This point reminds me that Patanjali, in his Mahabhasya, stated that grammarians are actually stripping off their wives' clothes, ornaments etc., when they are analyzing female speech or bak. "Grammar should be studied so that the speech may reveal herself to us." - Dasgupta, S.N., 1991:21) The point is that at the beginning of samkhyakarika, Isvarkrislma salutes "the mother" and that mother is undoubtedly prakrti. Eve~the adjectives or modifiers deployed to this F are in Feminine gender. Isvarkrishna said after saluting F, "All dependant purusas, who are like animal are worshipping you." This is a special privilege given to F by M. If you think that I am gendering the matter-consciousness duality, you may well find yourself that the authors of the samkhya texts themselves deployed sexist analogies. You may take all these gendered evidences as second order signifiers, but to me this M and F represents n.othing outside itself. Both these representations represent themselves. • The deployment of gender-metaphor in case of matter-consciousness is merely a tool and this metaphor tells us nothing. For example, if I've to believe your sexist logic, it will be very difficult for me to interpret different categories of yonis of gods, demons or humans. We find words like deIJayoni, narayon; in different texts including samkhya. If you take yon; as vagina,



the margins, February 2002 as male and

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


you may have a problem in interpreting those categories female ~ both of which are included in this classification.

• On the contrary, it tells us many things. This analogy teUs us about the represented condition of woman in the ancient mgime and the diachronic changes of that representation. Sometimes you may find the privileged position of woman or F in the text and sometimes you will find that woman is marginalized in the same text, This tension of changing privileges of M and F is attractive to me. In fact, the samkhya-texts show ambivalence (similar to the attitude of Hindu male towards female) in this regard. [ am now citing some excerpts from the samkhya texts. After saluting the main causeF, the author said that the attributes of manifested F are captivating the animal like puruso. (Vedantacancu, 1901(83:23). Radhakrishnan interpreted it in this way, "prakrti has caught purusas somehow in her web." (1923:291) It is the repetition of the same Adam-Eve story. Thus spake Radhaknshnan, "No cause is assigned to account for the original entanglement of the eternal souls, once free in the equally eternal prakrti. Only the fact is noticed that the purusas are caught in the meshes of prakrti apparently without their consent." (Radhakrishnan, 1923 :29, emphasis added) From the male-perspective, F is just like an adulterous vamp. Again, F is compared with a Female dancer, who excites many men when she is dancing and she is gazing at many men at the same time, [Please note here the plurality of men as samkhya believes in the plurality arM, (bahupurusauada). This bahupurusauada is obviously a trace of the polyandrous, matrifocal society, where F naturally enjoys privileged position In the hierarchy.] Let us now move to Sayana Madhava, who also compared F with a femaledancer, When a female dancer stops her dancing, male spectators no more look at her. That is, when F's act is over, she is abandoned.! Madhava also said that husband divorces his adulterous wife by condemning her infidelity when that wife ceases her work or when she is no more required for his enjoyment. F ceases after showing her act to many !Vis and M divorced F after the accomplishment of the work of generation. That is, praktti acts and purusa enjoys the fruits of her action. On the one hand, F is active female, which is only found in matrifocal society; on the other hand, F is marginalized, when some samkhya text-writers also considered M as master and active F as servant. ~This is an undoubtedly patrifocal interpretation of the relationship.
3 "Yetthe change appearing in puruso is unreal and fictitious. The union of puruso with the subtle body is the cause of samsara, and salvation is attained through the breaking of the union by means of the knowledge of the distinction between puruso and prakrti. When prakrti withdraws itselffrom purusa, the latter realises the absurdity of attributinq the adventures of pmkrti to itself." (Radhakrishnan" 1923 :312).

In the context of describing the equilibrium of attributes, Isvarkrishna uses the analogy of polygamy. The wife, who causes pleasure to her husband, also causes displeasure to her husband's other wives (here wives are different attributes). Thanks to the husband's good gaze,. the sattua-attributes of F (good wife) flourish. In this way, all the attributes of F are explained with the analogy of good and bad wife. Due to the adrsta or destiny of the consumer M, the same wife emits pleasure and displeasure. (Vedan tacancu , 1901:115) Consider this "good gaze" of M that is the cause of the flourishing attributes. Does it not entail the privilege of Mover F and the liminality of F? Here is a distinct switchover from matriarchy to patriarchy. Compare kamasutra in this regard. I was not surprised to find that purusa exclusively refers to the dominant male: purusah iti pradhanyakhyapanortham. Strinam tu purusadhina tribarya-sevetyasuatantryam. (Kamasutra, il:1(2) ("To attribute the privilege/ dominance to the purusa, the word purusa is used as the service to the tribarga or three essentials of life [dharma, artha, kama] of women depends on the purusa.") • You are switching over from philosophy to some other aspects of society depending on some analogies deployed by some commentators for an easy understanding of complexities of philosophy. You would only find such adulterous polyandrous women (bahuba/Jabha, in Batsyayana's term citraratha) in the ladyland (pramilarajya) as mentioned by Batsyaya,na. How do you know that matriarchy precedes patriarchy in this context? • My conjecture depends on, first of all, the conclusion taken by historians regarding the chronological precedence of matriarchy over patriarchy. My formulation is instigated by the female power-worship or sakti pujo where eccelestia! female power is equated with ultimate and supreme reality or even male brahman (who is referred to as 'sah', Sanskrit "He" not so., Sanskrit "She" ). There was a tension between matriarchal power-worship and patriarchal Brahminlsm. This tension was engendered by the difference between substratum female-worship and superstratum Brahrninical male-worship. This tension also contaminates the Hindu male's ambiguous relationship with the female (as noted by Nandy, 1980, Kakar, 1981, and Dyson, 1985: 301). The Hindu male is haunted by this <l.mbiguity of different privileges, He is worshipping F as mother and at same time he is MANeuvering woman. Hindu-He is at a time a motherfucker (the abusive word "rnothercot" is extensively used in the north India. Note the use of English word "mother" in this hybrid compound) and a mother-worshipper or an obedient son of his mother. In this context, to answer your question the spectator; materialityis the dancer performing for him untilsuch time as the aesthetic performance has been completed. Consciousness is the young cell; materiality the nourishing milk. Consciousness is the young lover; materiality is the shy virgin who withdraws from his sight having being seen by him in her'nakedness, Consciousness Is the master, materiality is the obedient servant." (Larson, Bhattacharya, 1987: 83).

The analogies deployed to M·F relation in different samkhyo·texts can be summarized in this way: "Or again, consciousness is the crystal, materiality the china rose, that distorts the darity of the crystal and makes it appear as what it is not. Consciousness is


from the margins; February 2002

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy



and to subscribe to my position, I must cite Kosambi. Kosambi (1962) showed how the ancient mother-cult was marginalized due to the patriarchal intervention of superstratum Aryan culture: "The shrine _of any n:othergoddess without an identificatio brahmanica is outs~de the village. Occasionally, and with her special permission a representattve stone r:nay be brought into some temple inside the village to facilitate service dUring the rains." (1962: 91)That is, mother was marginalized and placed at the crossroads (outside the village) by the aryan priestly commu~e. (Note tha: we still follow the tradition: raksako/i is worshipped at the wayside). Kosarnbi also observed (ibid:109) that the mother goddess was h;ger:n~ni~ally, subsumed by the Brahminical cult (Kosarnbi used wor~s like asslm!laho~ "acculturation". This demonstration is also confirmed by Nandy s observation'». That is, F was MANeuvered by the culture of M. illustrate it one can take an instance from the Hindu purana (Devr Bhagabat, Mrlkandya Candi), where Brahmanic culture projected their ~nemy as male demons, Devi Durga, who was created by the (male) gods concentrated power, fought against the asuras - 'male-demons' - t~ re:establish the .malegods' sovereignty. ,The paradox of the story.is that mdl?,enous n;:a~l'larchy was fighting with the patriarchal asuras (whlch means demons In later Indo-Aryan culture, but "gods" in the Indo-Iranian-counterpart) and later on matriarchy was subsumed by the priestly (obviously male) commune and was projected as well as represented as Brahminical goddess by the .way of male-selving. In case of Laksmi (the goddess of property) also, an ICon ~f non-Laksmi made of cowdung is worshipped outside the main door. ThIS non-Laksrni, according to Thakur (1350 Bangabda: 27-30), is a non-Arya~ goddess, who was marginalized by the Aryan reconstruction of new Laksmi.

Nowadays, this Hindu worldview of the ultimate reality incarnated in the sacred female body or mother nature, does not have any impact on the Hindu male's attitude towards female as heterosexual relationship is controlled by patriarchal values almost similar to the catholic church. Secondly, it must be noticed that the militant Durga Vahini (Woman's organization of B.J.P.) Is now operating in our MOTHER land to destroy asuras (=non-Hindus?). An extremely male-centred political party constitutes this vahini, named after mother Durga. • This is too much as I have said earlier, citing Choudhuri, that one should not contaminate darsana with the concept of purana. The philosophy should not be disturbed by such other factors. This type of explanation opposes the crucial question of matter-consciousness dyad. • I think that is too positivist and deterministic an attitude (what is wrong with positivism?) I do not, for the time being, want to philosophize on the male-female relationship. Authors of samkhya texts often cited purana to illustrate their philosophical ideas. To illustrate the solidarity of equilibrium of attributes, Vedantecencu mentioned the story of two csurc-brothers _ Sunda and Upasunda. They were meditating for long to achieve immortality. At last, Bmhma appeared before them. Brahrna agreed to fulfill any of their wishes except immortality. They then prayed, "None other than we would be able to destroy each other." Brahma accepted their prayer. They then disturbed gods with their violent act. Disgusted by their act of Violence, gods created a beautiful woman by amalgamating the attributes of all beautiful women called TIlottoma. She excited them. Then both the brothers were eager to marry TIlottama. They fought a duel and killed each other. In case of the three attributes F (i.e., three competing attributes can destroy each other), the same disturbance may happen, but for the sake of the M, that does not at all occur. (Vedantacancu, 1901/83: 117) What is here noticeable is the role of female similar to Matahari or Hindi Movies' vamps. The female is empowered by the male power and that female-power as a vamp can destroy disturbing male solidarity. • However, I think, it is not simple matriarchy or patriarchy, but it is an overdetermined anyonyo-mithunaurtti Or functional mutual intercourse between M and F. As per Samkhya, purusa or prakrti - no one is Inferior to the other. You can trace it in Upanisads also. When Brahman, the Supreme Being felt boredom after creation, He created a female counterpart: He (sah, the male brahman) could not enjoy alone as none could enjoy (reme<Oram= to play, to intercourse) alone, therefore he wished to transform himself into another being or wanted to create a second self. He enjoyed as much as heterosexual pleasure (at the moment of embracing each other) in this context. He divided himself into two. Thus become husband and wife. From them humans were born. Everyone is incomplete in his autonomous existence. The


5 "A number of studies have found that such a society tends to emphasize the feminine principle in nature, to see nature as a mother, who is irascible ~nd un~redic!~b.le, propitiable only through a wide variety of rites and rituals. Parllcularly I~ societies where nature continues to be the dominant partner in the man-nature dyad, Important themes in folklore and religious texts are often the fecundity and bounty of nature. as well as her frequent denial of sustenance to men who have poor means of controilmg the ficklemother and are totaJlydependent upon her for survival. This is certainly true of India. Though the Brahmanic tradition attempted to limit the dominance of wo~an in society, the pre-Aryan dominance of woman was retained in many are~ of l~fe, particularly in the symbolic system. This undeniably is a matri-f.o.ca~ul~ure 10 w.h~ch c femininity is inextricablylinked with prakriti, or nature, and pralmtl wl~hIda,or ~CtiVI~. Similarly, the concept of adyasakti, primal or original power, is entirely femlnl~e m India. It is the male principle in the godhead, puruso that is reliable but relatively passive, weak, distant, and secondary. That is why the deities that preside over those critical sectors of life which one cannot control- such as the success of crops and the occurrence of famines (food), protection against cholera and smallpox (personal survival), and childbirth and child health (perpetuation of raca) - are all motherly figures". (Nandy, 1980: 35).



the margins. february


Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


gap is filled up by the female. He made intercourse with His self-produced wife (B rho d a ra n yo k Upan Isad, 72). If you ins ist on su c h gendered explanations, I must admit that it is not the hierarchical relationship between M and F, on the other hand it is androgynous relationship; a mutual relationship between M and F is evident in the iconographic representation of ardhanarisoara, a body with two equal counterparts: half male and half female.' In our tradition, no act of meditation is possible without equal participation of male and female. To quote Radhakrishnan, " ... the mere presence of purusasexcites prakrti to activity and development. Though purusa is nol endowed with creative might, prakrti, which produces the manifold universe, is so on account of its (Reader may notice the use of neuter gender) union with puruso. Prakrti is blind, but with the gUidance of purusa it produces the manifold world. The union of the two is compared to a lame man of good vision mounted on the shoulders of a blind man of sure foot." (Radhakrishnan, 1923:288, emphasis added) Now I want to tell you the story of Vasistha to illustrate the inevitable part of F in the Hindu thought. Vasistha once had been meditating for long near Kamaksya temple following the daksinacara (daksina or right side is reserved for male; in the iconography, female is placed at the left side of the always right male except some Buddhist sculptures) method, but he could not succeed. The goddess Kamaksya then appeared before him and instructed him to perform uarnacara (uarna or left refers to female) to achieve the predetermined goal. Vasistha requested the mother goddess to teach him the methods of varnacara. As mother could not teach oamacara to son, the mother goddess advised him to go to China to learn the methods of female-ritual as he could not succeed only through daksinacara. The goddess informed him that Lord Buddha was engaged in Chinese-ritual in that land and Vasistha should learn Chinese ritual (d. Chinese cosmology also depends on M-F principle of Yan and Yin.] from that country and should spread it in this land. Vasistha went to China and found Buddha himself was engaged in sex. This also happened to Samkaracarya. He had to learn kamasutra by transporting his subtle body/soul into the body of a deceased king. Samkara performed act of sex via the deceased king's body. He had to learn that as without the knowledge of kama, he could not achieve the whole body of the knowledge.

Nandy also noted an interesting fact that this concept of cosmic fusion of M and F has a deep impact on the psyche of the Hindu male: 'The Indian, apparently, is not more creative only when he is more feminine, l.e., when he can better accept his feminine self. His creativity also consists in his being able to identify the cosmic feminine principle with his own internal concept of authority and then in defining this authority and simultaneously making large scale symbolic reparations for this defiance." (ibid, 39)

• This is a good point, though one may notice easily in your citation from Upanisada, that, in all these cases from durga, ti/ottoma to brahmon's creation, M teleologically created the F. We are now proceeding towards a tensed hybrid zone, where both the traces of matriarchy and patriarchy are amalgamated to give birth to the concept of androgyny. If you want to categorize it in a positivist, deterministic way, you may find four phases: PHASE-I: PRIVILEGED F, PHASE-JJ: manEUVERING BY DOMINANT M OF F WITH A TENSED RELATIONSHIp, PHASE-Ill: TENSION APPARENTLY DISSOLVED IN ANDROGYNY, PHASE-IV: DOMINANCE OF M AND AMBIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH F (RETURN OF THE PHASE-II AS A SYMPTOM in the Lacanian sense of the term). Though, it must be remembered that in these phase-Wise divisions, it is very difficult for me (as a non-historian) to ascribe chronological order. Whatever may be the phases, what we have got today is the epistemologically amalgamated knowledge of all these phases. In the ontogeny of Hindu male, one of the phases is foregrounded sometimes or they coexist in the multiple selves of Hindu Male(what I've referred earlier as tension of Hindu male). However, your Vasistha-story reminds me of the duality of prajna and upaya in Tantric Buddhism, especially in the Hevrajatantra. Prajna or sunyafa is a passive principle or thcuiess with perfect purity and perfect knowledge in her (Da.sgupta, S.B., 1974: 95). She (la/ana) is the mother; her organ (bhaga, 'vagina', from where the word bhagaban, [Masculine] 'the god endowed with bhaga', is derived) is represented as lotus. The ida nerve in the left (vama) side of the body is the prajna; she is also called as moon, or sakti (the female power), or the prasauadharmin (d. samkhya) ovum. On the other hand, the whole world is a display of the upaya (literary 'means' or 'instrument') or koruna (mercy) or activity; his organ is symbolized as bajra (thunder) male organ; he is represented by the pinga/a nerve (nerve is an inadequate translation of nadi) at the right (daksina) side of the body. Upaya is-the source of seeds. Ida and pinga/a commingles in avadhuti (mahasukha or supreme pleasure), the middle of the middle nerve susumna and that is the way to nirvana or supreme freedom. (Rabindranath used this symbol [thunder in thj? midst of lotus] in his play, perhaps influenced by Sister Nivcdita). Dasgupta, S. B. described this relation, that is almost similar to the samkhya-concept of anyaonyamithunavrtti: "The world-appearance as result of dependant origination is the grand bridegroom; had he not been there the bride sunyota would have been dead as it were. But, on the other hand, had this beautiful bride of sunyata been separated for anytime from the bridegroom, he. would remain eternally under bondage. So the relation between sunyata and karuna is like the relation of inseparable conjugal love; the love between them is the most natural love (sahajam prema) and so it is inseparable." (l974:96) That is, without the bride and


from the rnarqins, February 2002 Body in 'Hindu' philosophy 197

bridegroom, who are residing within our body, you can't care for your body's supreme pleasure or mahasukha. The yoga-concept of bo~y and its subsequent nerves are reinterpreted here with the male-female principle. You may notice that the intercourse between M and F occurs within our body and the procedures of Yoga or tantra are nothing but the procedures of care of self. Even in OUT archttectura, two temples, one big and a small, were built together to symbolize bride and bridegroom. In this type of rekha-pida temple, in its side view, you may see that a couple is offering their puja in the yajna. The technical terms of temple architecture are named following the taxonomy of F's body: talajamgha (from heel to knee), bandhana (knee), uparjamgha ( the upper shank),. veranda (pelvis), gandi (upper portion), beki (throat), mastak, khapurz (head, skull)(For details see Sanyal,1980:47-48). • It is clear that you are now heading towards the tantrik concept of body and corporal pleasure. Many scholars discussed that body with three nadis and their subsequent cakras or circles, though it is a sacred secret, which cannot be practiced without the help of a guru and that knowledge should be fortified like a housewife (gopyaku/abodhuriua; why was such secrecy practised for telling the truth of the inner body?). What is haunting me is the alphabetical order of those organs. Is this alphabetical order of cokras a mnemonic device only? • It is a mnemonic device and it is not a mnemonic device, it is the supposed thetic phase of a constructed and imagined .contex~-f~ee stable subject, who is supposed to be undisturbed by the outside sociality, Tantriks only handle such supposed phenotextual (rule-governed phenomenon of language) order of a supposed stable subject. What is noticeable here is the mechanism of constructing a stable subject as master of the central system without being disrupted by the symbollc order of language as well as institutional order. Therefore, in our baul sadhana, the maintenance of aptoSabdhan (awareness from [institutional] reliable authority) is crucial. Bauls maintained that apono SadhanakOtha na koHio jOthatOtotho, aponare apni tumi HoYo Sabdhan (Do not tell others the secrets of your rites. You also should be aware of yourself.). Secondly, the tantrik corporal mechanism for constructing such and inner and stable subject proves that there was a provision for a context-free su bject in the so-called Indian context. Dasqupta, S.B. (1352 bangabda) noticed that this inverse meditation (uIOT Sadhan.) for searching for the inner self is the key concept of almost of all the religious sects of India. Even the concept of birth of the universe influences our medical science. S. N. Dasgupta (1922/75:213) lamented that the contribution of Caraka in the explanation of M-F duality has never been dealt with. Dasgupta therefore himself took the project of projecting "Dr." Caraka as one of the commentators on Samkhya texts.

• Inner or outer body, whatever it may be, what I've noticed, quite contrary to popular views, is the extreme concern for the body in the Indian context. Our temples are full of sculptures of amorous couples. My question is, how and when did we consider this body as a bad material? As for example, Ramakrishna (the guru of modern middle class Bengali) "was emphatically not interested in probing or celebrating Hindu conjugality. For deep within him lay an acute physical revulsion for heterosexual intercourse. He frequently equated if with defection, and expressed a fear and abhorrence against the female body which aroused male lust: 'Blood, flesh, fat, entrails, stools, urine-how can one love such a body?' The 'limbs and openings' of woman's bodies appeared enormous to him. Sex to him consequently was not only disgusting when pursued within marriage: rather it could then become associated with kanchan and the need for salaried jobs, and therefore doubly dangerous."" (Sarkar, 1993:34). • This is almost the same story told by Samkhya. F instigates catalyst M and M has become dependent (baddha) M. To be in the safe side (with the independent purusa), Ramkrishna did not want to be dependant M. For the dependent M, the dangerous vamp F is always a scapegoat. She should be blamed as she is the bearer of domestic responsibility. To Ramakrishna, she is a tigress, always trying to bite him. He then criticized this bad body in the context of the new colonial morality that is also influenced and altered by Samkara's scheme. The project of bad body is, of course Samkara's scheme, but I must mention that Samkara is not alone responsible for this explanation of body as a bad material. If my context-sensitive sthulasariro suffers from dis-ease, r must begin my search for my context-free inner body with the help of inverse meditation' (the samkhya quest [jijnasa] for philosophy starts from the experiences of sufferings, frustration or adhi and yoga praxis develops the technique for overcoming such frustration. (ef. Bouddha Philosophy also) thus the concept of bad body had got an epistemic value in certain phases of History. Samkara wrote Sariraka bhasya of Badorayona's brahmasutra. The word sariraka itself triggers (sarira 'body' + kuun, the suffix kuun is used to scandalize body) the concept of bad body. • Here we have a transformation. It is paradoxical enough that Samkara "stole" many essential features of Somkhya doctrine with due modification. Samkra did not tolerate the concept of independent material, therefore, to him, male brahman or neuter brahman is preferable to that of independent and active F (Larson, Bhattacharya, 1987:29). Therefore, the manifested and unmanifested F had transformed into saguna and nirguna brahman. And the F (?) maya has become the incarnation of


from the margins, February 2002

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


ignorance, though maya means, before Samkara, prajna or wisdom." This inversion or role-reversal again proves my point that the philosophical discourse on M and F is controlled, codified and appropriated by the non-discursive formation of codes and conducts of male-female relationship. It is no wonder that in Madhva's duaitauada (another school of vedanta or uttaramimamsa) the M and F are represented as Bisnu and Laksmi. • Then, jf we really ignore our body, why have we seen mithunaicons in our temples that are found throughout our history? Here I find the same anonyomilhunavrtfi. Sometimes, we've even seen the active F who is instigating the M (e.g., in Durga temple, Aihiol; Brahmesvara temple, BflUvanesuara etc.). My question is - why are such amorous couples inscribed outside the sacred temple? If we think that body is bad, why should we indulge in such so-called vulgar erotic sculpture in Hindu temples. Is it not the one-ness of M and F that is conveyed through this erotic art? • Sanyal (1980:14-26) listed 11 probable causes (given by different scholars) behind such porno-sculpture. He, citing Nirad C. Choudhuri, questioned the philosophization of such erotic sculpture: "Everybody knows that the recent interest in it is pornographic, but in writing about it, no one faces the fact and offers explanations which would be called balderdash if the innocence of the writers were above question." (Choudhuri cited in Sanyal, 1980,26). This is also true for our philosophical texts, in explanations of which we are nonsensically philosophizing the simple male-female relation with the high ideal of transcendental self; we are whitewashing it with a goal to prove our innocence, being oblivious about the fact of our desire. But the proliferation of such SCUlpture at different junctures of different historical changes (graphically represented by Sanyal, 1980:39 on the basis of so called norms of vulgarity) proves the existence of management of sex in Indian context. Porno-sculpture attracts tourists/tirthajatris or pilgrims to the temple. The illicit relation between elderly Radha and Krishna attracts us, but we condemn it in our day to day life. We want to hear their "vulgar" stories through kathakata, but we also condemn that at the level of actual performance. This double standard is a recent phenomenon, Aurobinda gave the foUowingdefinition of maya (feminine gender) in the glossary of the Upanisads (1971:447): "signifiedoriginally in the Veda comprehensive and creative knowledge, wisdom that is from of old; afterwards taken in its second and derivative sense, cunning, magic, illusion." ... witchcraft, sorcery, phantom ... See also MonierWilliams, 1899: 811. This semantic change also proves my hypothesis of phase-wise changes of privilegesof Mand F. What we need is a historical account of such changing phases.

thanks to the intervention of other Victorians in the 19 C. From then on, body has become more bad, sexual austerity (that was equated with the high ideal of brahmacharya) was emphasized and our heterogeneous concepts of sexuality were streamlined and reshaped according to the demands and dictates of the Victorians. The metaphysical construction of "Hindu" is also a result of colonial taxonomization. I've no hesitation to say that the above representation is also contaminated by the approximated standard of sexuality. • I am again insisting that you read different texts of samkhya without being bothered about the male-female duality. I request you to defer the male-female meanings of the puruso and prakrti for the time being. You willbe surprised to find that samkhya develops a new theory of matterconsciousness duality within the ambit of reductive materialism that cannot be compared with the Upanisadic concept of "ghost in the machine". To quote larson, Bhattacharya (1987:77)" ... the comparison of samkhya philosophy with reductive materialism breaks down, for instead of expelling the traditional or conventional "ghost in the machine" and getting on with the task of describing the world and experience without "ghost talk", Samkhya as it were refurbishes the "ghost", stripping it of its conventional attributes and reintroducing it in the framework of an "eccentric" dualism in the sense that the "ghost" no longer has to do with "mind talk," "mentalist" talk, or "ego" talk, all of which latter are fully reducible to guna talk in good reductive materialist fashion. Samkhya designates its eccentric ghost as "consciousness" (cetana, purusa), thus introducing a fundamental distinction between "awareness" (antahkaranurttJ, cittavrtti) and "consciousness" (cetana, purusa) and requiring a radically different cult of dualism, namely, a dualism between a closed, causal system of reductive materialism (encompassing "awareness" or the "private" life of the mind), on the one hand, and a non-intentional and contentless consciousness, on the other." This psycho-philosophy of consciousness is more interesting, when the theory of double negation is introduced to establish the (self-)refJexivity of consciousness hypothesis. Vacaspati "is much more concerned with discussing the problem of the relation between intellect (as a manifestation of primordial materiality) and consciousness, According to Vacaspati, a theory of reflection (pratibimba) is required in order to explain how intellect is able to have experience. Consciousness becomes reflected in the intellect, thus making it appear as jf the intellect were conscious. Experience actually occurs only in intellect, but it appears as jf consciousness experience~, because its image (chaya) has become reflected in the intellect." (ibid:31)
8 [am summarizing that hypothesis from Larson, Bhattacharya, 1987 (81-2) with some minor changes: "The attainment of the discrimination (of purusa) occurs as a result of meditative analysis (abhyasa) of the fundamental principles through which one progressively abandons (tyaga) all contents, saying 'It is not this,' 'It is not that"


from the margins, February 2002

Body in 'Hindu' philosophy


• From mechanical overdetermination of F and M and its subsequent matriarchy-patriarchy, we are turning towards a strategic elaboration of samkhya Philosophy. As it is revealed from fn.7, the infinite supplements of pre-reflexive independent purusa that is almost similar to transcendental cogito and its reflexive dependent existence has a crucial role in explaining the awareness of external object. In this reflexive relation, the ·transcendental subject turns back on HIMself (the spectacular I in the mirror) by reducing him as dependent M and grasps HIS own reduced identity with HERself (in case of brahman, maya the vamp apparently distorts nirguna brabmans as if object is reflection of subject or object is veiled by trans-subject (isabasyQm~dam YQtk/mea jagatyam jagat ... ), i.e. subject-object duality ends in such a regressive supplement of reflection. Could we interpret the same as non-identical as well as non-identical as same (bhedabheda)? Anyway, we are not interested in such logocentric discourse any more. • We are now at the end of the puja. You've to immerse the iconic body of the mother goddess, the incarnation of supreme brahman, who is hot captivated in the prison house of language.

supreme male being) of your sacred body, which is reflected in the mirror in the holy water with turmeric powder in the earthen pot (kundahadi, which is also covered by a triangle, made of three wooden sticks) for your immersion. May I sing a Lalan-song now? ami Ekdino no dekhilam tare,

amar bartr pose arsinogar, Ek porsl bpsot kore .... [ I've not seen him/her for a single day; slhe is my fellow neighbour, . living in the mirror-city at the stone through distance beside my house] Dear readers, this is not the end of the exquisite guide to the eavesdropping corporal story of the Hindus. Please treat this arranged t:eI'fJS'e corpus (though inadequate) os a prelude to a future project that'll explain 'bur" deHotOtto (corporeal theory, the tenn is used by the bau/s). 1promise to take care of person-ego problem with the problem of cultivation of self (aMtor abad: "0 my mind, you do not know how to cultivate this uncultivated human-Jield"[RamprasadJ or atmosamskrtivarva silpani, "the culture of self' Isart[aitareya brahman]) in "Hindu" Philosophy in that project.

• I utter ksamasva (pardon me devil. All incarnated gods and goddesses {avarana devata} have vanished into the trans-body of the supreme being. I am inhaling the essence of the offered flower so that the tejas or your radiant strength may come to my heart through the way of susumna nadi. I am now drawing the triangle, your sacred vagina in the isana-kona (North-East direction). Lastly, I am distorting the image (third signifier) of your image (second Signifier, that represents
There are many consequences of this !yogaor negation; one of which is double negation. A double negation occurs, in other words, whereby con!entlessness appears to have content and content appears to be conscious. After that, when contentless consciousness is present to primordial materiality, this double negation occurs quite spontaneously or naturally and becomes the occasion for the manifest world and experience to occur. Hence, because consciousness and primordial materiality (in any given world cycle) are all pervasive "existents" it can be said that -this spontaneous double negation is beginningless. Furthermore, the manifest world and experience, therefore, though fully real, are nevertheless distorted appearances in which pure consciousness appears to be bound up in the transaction of tripartite (three gunas) process (and hence caught in the closed casual system) and tripartite process appears to be conscious (and hence lacking any basis outside of the closed casual system for the possibility of freedom or release). Whether, this double negation is construed with a Simpletheory of reflection (pratibimba),whereby consciousnessbecomes reflected in intellect (thereby occasioning experience)-as in Vacaspati Misra-or with a double theory. of reflection (anyonyapratibimba), whereby consciousness becomes reflected in intellectand intellect in turn is reflected back on consciousness-as in Vijnanaviksu-makes little difference in terms of the basic thrust of toe some of the Samkhya position, which is that there is a basic epistemological distortion at the root of experience."

Bibliography: Bandyopadhyay, D. 2000. "The Making of lndian Philosophy of Sciences".
from the margins: Of Knowledge Science and Postcoloniality, February 2000.

(pp. 57-73). Bandyopadhyay, K 1984. SaNkho-patonjOI dOrSon. Kolkata: Pascimbamga Rajya Pustak Parsad. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya Sastri, D.C. 1979. Bharatiya Darsana kosa.(Vol.II) Kolkata: Sanskrit College. Bhattacharya, K 1982. bharotio SONSkriti 0 Onekanto bedanto. Bardhaman: Bardhaman University. Bhattacharya, S. M. 1311 bamgabda. puroHit dOrpan. Kolkata: Satyanaryan Library. Chakrabortti, S. 1386 bamgabda. SaYOn madhobio SOrbodOrsOna SONgroHo. (Vol. ll) Kolkata: Sahityasri. Choudhuri, R. 1973. Ten Schools of Vedanta. Kolkata: Rabidra Bharati University. Dasgupta, S.B. 1352 bamgabda. bharotio. Sadhonar oYkko. Kolkata: Visvabharati. _____ . 1962. Obscure Religious Cults. Kolkata: Firma KLM.


from the margins, February 2.002 . 1974. An lntroduction to Tantric Buddhism. Kolkate: University

_-:of Calcutta.

Dasgupta, S. N. 1922. A History of Indian Philosophy. (Vol. I) Delhi: Motllal Banarasidas. _--,---. 1991. The Mahabhasya of Patanjali. (With Annotation, Ahnikas I-IV) Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas. Dyson-Kusari, It 1985. robindronath Navana.

bhikToria okampor Sondhane. Kolkata:

Foucault, M. 1978/90. The History of Sexuality. (Vol. I) New York: Vintage Books. Kakar, S. 1981. The Inner World. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kaviraj, G. 1995. tantrik Sadhona Bardhaman University.


(Vol. I & 1I) Bardhaman:

Kosambi, 0_0. 1962. Myth and Realty. Murnbai: Popular Prakahan. Larson, G.J., Bhattacharya, RS. 1987. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies. (Vol. IV). Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas. Monier-Williams, Banarasidas. M. 1899. A Sanskrit English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal

Nandy, A. 1980. At The Edge of Psychology. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Nietzsche, F. 1956. The Genealogy of Morals. New York. Rablnow, P (ed.). 1984. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Radhakrishnan, S. 1923/40. Indian Philosophy. (Vol.lI) Delhi: Blackie and Son. Roy, Tridibnath (ed.). 1980. batSaYner kamoSutro. Kolkata: Nabapatra. Sanyal, N. 1980. bharotio bhaSkOrje m ithun. Kolkata: Bengal Publishers Pvt.
Ltd. Sarkar, S. 1993. An Exploration of the Ramakrishna Vivekananda Tradidon.

Shim!a: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Sri Aurobinda. 1971. The Upanishads. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobinda Asrarna. Thakur, A. N. 1350. baNiar broto. Kolka! - Viswabharati. Vedantacancu-Samkhyabhusana, PC. 1901/83 Pascimbamga Rajya Pustak Parsad. Samkhyakarika. Kolkata:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful