The Place of the Hidden Moon Erotic Mysticism in the Vaisnava_Sahajiya Cult of Bengal

by Edward C. Dimock Jr.

The Vaisnava-Sahajiya cult that arose in Bengal in the sixteenth century was an intensely emotional attempt to reconcile the spirit and the flesh. This book lifts the veil from an obscure religious phenomenon in a study that with appeal to students of the history of religion as well as of Indian culture.

299 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1989

Reviews

[Riju Ganguly · Rating 1 out of 5]

Once upon a time, the authorities in US were trying to get a grip over the Eastern mindset amidst growing losses in Vietnam, while at home the "make love, not war" movement gathered pace. In those troubled times scholars genuinely tried to understand the art of love as practiced by Sahajiya cults. Those "sacred yet profane" practices remained esoteric and secret. So the next best candidate was hoiseted upon academic pedestal—the Vaishnava cultural movement!
This book details the results of vivisection carried upon the imagnary body of that movement.
Followed by Wendy Doniger's breezy and sidetracking 'Foreward' and sundry 'Preface', the book contains~
1. The Vaishnava-Sahajiya Synthesis
2. Further Historical Observations
3. Caste, Women, and the Sahajiya Movement
4. The Ideal Man in Society
5. Man and Super-man: Physical and Metaphysical Bases for the Sahajiya Sadhana
6. Principles of Sadhana
7. A Hint of Immortality
8. The Bauls of Bengal
According to Doniger, this 'masterly' book had spawned several researches and has shaped the outloook of many more researchers. Unfortunately, I found it to be extremely inadequate and obsolete.
Most of the good things in this book are either outright cannibalisations from S.K. De's classic work "Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal", or translations of works penned by Bengali scholars. The rest are paddings meant to make this book interesting for scholars dulled by Freudian discourses and attendees of smack-shrouded sessions.
The author had zero interest in studying the social or anthropological implications of various expressions of Vasihnavism. Nether does he care about the Tantric roots of Sahajiya beliefs.
It would be far-far better to read De's work, supplanted by modern researches.
This one is not recommended.

[Michael Nguyen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read. It describes the tantric side of Vaishnavism. Occult Vaishnavism, and sexual yogic practices. Esoteric interpretations of the Gaudiya Vaishnava scriptures according to the Sahajiya worldview. There are plenty of references, passages. It explains a little on Mandalas, Yantras, Yonis, Tantras, Lingams, Sahasrara Chakra. Heaps of cool esoteric stuff in here.

[Belle Meade School]

294.5

[Jim Schwartz · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was first introduced to Professor Dimock's writings by reading his glowing foreword to Bhaktivedanta Swami's "Bhagavad-gita As It Is", 1972. And I have a few of Professor Dimock's other books (two of my favorites are "In Praise of Krishna", 1967; and "Caitanya Caritamrita of Krsnadasa Kaviraja", 1999). I have a respect for his works; they are scholarly and show a deep understanding of the bhakti-marg of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Except for this book. This book is deeply flawed, especially how he names certain individuals as being Sahajiyas. Being called a Sahajiya is a serious accusation within mainstream Gaudiya-Vaishnavism. Even Prof. Dimock admits to these errors: in the "Note to the 1989 Edition", on page xvii, he notes that a colleague "takes particular exception to my including the great bhakta Ramananda Raya among the names of the Sahajiya Vaishnavas", and concedes that point (up to a point).

The author seems confused by the differences between raganuga-bhakti (spontaneous devotion) and sahajiyism. In a nutshell, practitioners of raganuga-bhakti may be lax on prescribed injunctions, but never on proscribed prohibitions. For Sahajiyas, however, indulgence in taboos is a defining mainstay of that cult.

Professor Dimock also includes Sri Nityananda Rama as being a Sahajiya, and uses specious logic to "prove" this. For example, on pages 49-50, he lists an incident related in the Caitanya Bhagavata, where Sri Caitanya and Sri Nityananda are offered wine, and therefore "the samnyasi [sic]... must have recognized [Sri] Nityananda as [a Sahajiya], for the offering of wine is hardly a part of ordinary hospitality in India." Once, long ago, in an Army uniform in a bus terminal, I was offered marijuana. Being offered this, being false recognized as a pothead, is not evidence that I am a pothead.

The Caitanya Bhagavat was written by Srila Vrindavana-dasa Thakur, Sri Nityananda's last disciple. In a footnote on the same page (concerning a different incident), Prof. Dimock dismisses Vrindavana-dasa Thakur's defense of Sri Nityananda, writing that "Vrindavana-dasa is [Sri] Nityananda's partisan [therefore] his testimony... can be discounted". Yet he uses Vrindavana-dasa's own words as "proof" of Sri Nityananda's sahajiyism? Dimock's "logic" is inconsistent.

Later in the book, pages 88-89, he mentions: "There was little love between [Sri Nityananda and Sri Advaita]", and describes a lunchtime incident between those two, from the Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, wherein Sri Advaita insults Sri Nityananda, who, in turn, responds by throwing rice. He mentions, dismissively, "that biographers consider this incident as joking". Yet the very next verse in the Caitanya Caritamrita clearly says, "Like this, laughing and having fun, they ate." Professor Dimock knows this; the quoted translation is his own, from his own 1999 book. So why does he hold this incident up as "evidence" of a rift between these two (one a strict brahmana, the other a supposed Sahajiya)? Also, Prof. Dimock started this paragraph with "After the death of [Sri] Caitanya..." which would make the reader believe that this incident occurred after Sri Caitanya's disappearance, when factions were starting to split apart. But Sri Caitanya was there at this lunch. This is clearly described in the Caitanya Caritamrita. Again, Prof. Dimock knows this. Why such misleading writing?

There are many, many more examples I can cite as flaws and non sequitors. I realize that this is an early work of Prof. Dimock, but I expect much more that this. I also expect more from the The University of Chicago Press, who publishes this book.

I am giving this book two stars, instead of one, because it does have some interesting historical information in it.

[Monika Müller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book deepened my understanding of Tantra in the East to a great deal