Introduction
Conducting fieldwork for my M.Phil. thesisFootnote * at the Jain ShvetambarFootnote 1 pilgrimage site of Nakoda in western Rajasthan between December 2009 and February 2010, I was surprised to find that a number of Jains were involved in a possession cult. It turns out that I am not alone in this reaction. Caroline Humphrey and James Laidlaw, conducting fieldwork at another Jain pilgrimage site, were also ‘surprised. . .to discover such a flourishing possession cult in a Jain temple’.Footnote 2 Why, one might ask, are we surprised to find instances of Jain possession? Part of the reason is certainly connected with the Jain focus on asceticism and self-control. Jainism, after all, started out as a salvation technique which focused on stopping the influx of karma and removing its earlier accumulation. Thus, correct conduct is extremely important in Jain soteriology. Jain teachings are full of lists related to ideals of self-control, the most obvious being the five great vows (mahavratas): causing no harm (ahimsa), speaking only truth (satya), not taking what is not freely given (asteya), celibacy (brahmacarya) and possessing nothing (aparigraha). A list of three restraints involving the progressive control of mental, vocal and physical activitiesFootnote 3 and a list of five careful actions including ‘care in motion’Footnote 4 are contemporary and classical examples of variations on the theme of self-control so typical of Jain soteriological teachings. Locating such core ideas, not only in Jainism, Gombrich and Obeyesekere write:
The great classical religions of India—Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Jainism. . .inculcated self-control and decorum. . .Possession is of course the very converse of self-control and is normally accompanied by the display of violent emotion. One could say that the Indian classical religions precisely censored out possession and opposed emotionalism.Footnote 5
This characterization is perhaps true if we look at Jain soteriology and early Jainism, but taken as a description of Jainism throughout history, and as a fully-fledged religion and not just a soteriology, it is highly problematic. As scholars we can extract a certain ideology from the core teachings of a religion and see these in relationship to actual practice, but the usefulness of this exercise has its limits in a religion like Jainism because its core teachings are derived from a soteriology that was never meant for all to practice: the religiosity of lay Jains is not, and was never, modelled on soteriology alone.
If we put the above quotation into the present tense we would commit two mistakes. Firstly, we would conflate religion with soteriology and risk making a model for how Jainism ought to be rather than a model of Jainism as it is practiced in real life.Footnote 6 Secondly, we would make the assumption that there is a fundamental opposition between asceticism (tapas) and enthusiastic, emotional devotion (bhakti), an assumption that has been challenged in recent studies.Footnote 7 This is not to suggest that possession is a completely unproblematic activity among Jains, and that its possible clash with Jain teachings is only an invention of scholars over-emphazising certain aspects of normative Jainism. Contemporary scepticism towards possession among Jains is widespread and not without its history. Still, possession is certainly not something new or foreign to Jainism. Furthermore, possession is not one thing. There are various types of possession—depending for instance on who possesses and who is possessed—and they have different implications in the Jain scheme of things.
In this paper I intend to present new ethnographic material on Jain possession and to use this as a starting point for a discussion on how we are to understand possession in Jainism, and Jainism in general. By means of exploring the positive, oracular possessions in Nakoda and comparing them with other cases of Jain possession I hope to highlight aspects of Jain religiosity that are often overlooked.
Earlier studies on Jain possession
There is little information available on spirit and deity possession in Jainism and, according to most literature on Jainism, it does not seem to be a part of the religious repertoire of Jains at all. There have been a few references to spirit possession amongst contemporary Jains in fairly recent anthropological literature. They mostly appear as scattered remarks here and there, the Jain pilgrimage site of Padampura being the most often mentioned and known location for the phenomenon.Footnote 8 Typically we learn that Jains are possessed by malign spirits which they try to rid themselves of by various religious means. One instance of possession is mentioned in an ethnographic work focusing primarily on the religious life of Jain women,Footnote 9 while CarrithersFootnote 10 briefly mentions a presumably Jain woman in Pune working as an oracle. A notable exception to this lacuna is Anne Vallely's ethnographic book on Jain female asceticsFootnote 11 and an articleFootnote 12 in which she explores various types of Jain possession. Vallely's ethnographic account is of special interest here, for it deals with possession in the ascetic community and their attitudes towards it. I will return to her work in detail when looking at the role of soteriology in Jainism and how it relates to possession.
Besides Vallely's work on possession, The Archetypical Actions of Ritual by Humphrey and Laidlaw is the only secondary literature describing Jain possession that I have found. Here we are taken to the above-mentioned Padampura where people come to rid themselves of evil spirits by the help of the Jina and his ancillary deity residing there. The authors describe in great detail the movements and actions of possessed Jains during the evening arati for the Jina, before they rush to the entrance were the ancillary deity might drive the spirits out.Footnote 13 However interesting these observations, their subsequent analysis is concerned with placing these possessions in relation to ritual theory. Hence, their discourse on Jain possession remains far removed from the discourses Jains themselves have on possession. It is exactly this discourse I am interested in here. While many studies on possessions have revolved around psychological and psycho-social theories, trying to uncover the factors behind such behaviours, this paper investigates how possessions are viewed and understood within the Jain community.
In the following I will present the reader with some background on possession in South Asia in general before looking at various cases of Jain possession through history. This will provide the context in which the ethnographic material from Nakoda can be presented and subsequently discussed in relation to other cases of Jain possession.
Possession in South Asia
Spirit and deity possessionFootnote 14 is a widespread phenomenon in South Asia, to which Smith's monumental study Deity and Spirit Possession in South Asia is a testament.Footnote 15 Possession appears already in the Rigveda under the term avesha (derived from the verb ‘to enter’), the most common word for possession through the religious history of South Asia up until modern times.Footnote 16 In the later Vedic period we also find terms derived from the verb root grih (‘to seize’) indicating a more negative sort of possession. This distinction between the positive oracular possession, and the negative disease-producing possession is found already in the Rigveda, and is still observable today.Footnote 17 While positive possessions are typically voluntary and by heavenly beings and deities, negative possessions are typically involuntary and done by ghosts and hellish beings. Though there are certainly many types of possession that can be placed somewhere between these two, the distinction between the positive and the negative possession is a good starting point for understanding possession in Jainism.
There is a widespread reflex, both in academia and indigenous orthodoxies, to associate possession with ‘people of lower social ranks, including low castes, tribals, and women, or more generally those lacking literacy’.Footnote 18 It turns out, however, that the picture is more nuanced than this. In this paper, for instance, we are in fact mainly dealing with middle-class, well-educated Jains. These cases of Jain possession support Smith's claim that possession does not only have a horizontal, but also a strong vertical presence in Indian society.Footnote 19
Possession in South Asia does not appear as a clearly distinguished, well defined category covered by one specific term. The possessed subject can be young or old, male or female. The possessive agent can also be of both genders belonging to various superhuman categories. It can be benevolent, malevolent or a combination of the two, or it can in fact be a living human being. The result can be divine or destructive. Following Smith we can say that possession is an indigenous category distinguished by ‘extreme multivocality’.Footnote 20 In his study he looks at possessions as they occur in Sanskrit literature and finds that possession can be ‘destructive, instructional, healing or unifying, protective, symptomatic of perfected devotion, a tool used by advanced Yogins, or indicative of a state of immersion in erotic love’.Footnote 21 One of the few general conclusions Smith manages to draw from his extensive study is that: ‘Both classical texts and modern ethnographies suggest that possession was [and is] a common way of thinking in Indian culture and performance’.Footnote 22 A central assumption in this paper is that Jains are very much a part of this culture and not some separate group devoted only to ideals of asceticism. Jainism, like other Indian religions, has ‘open boundaries’,Footnote 23 and a clearly defined Jain religious identity vis-à-vis other religious identities is not necessarily apparent when looking at specific individual cases.Footnote 24 Possession, therefore, has also been a common way of thinking in Jain culture, and Jain literature reflects this.
Stories of Jain possession
As already mentioned, possession is not something new among Jains. In Shvetambar canonical literature we find the story of the garland-maker, Ajjunae, who become possessed by a protective deity (yaksha). In what follows I will paraphrase the story, as given in the Antagadadasao.Footnote 25
Ajjunae was a garland-maker living in the city of Rayagihe with his wife Bandhumai. Like his forefathers he worshiped the yaksha Moggarapani. On this one particular day, Ajjunae brought his wife with him to the shrine of Moggarapani. Happily entering the shrine they were brutally attacked by a gang of six men. Ajjunae was tied up and the assailants molested his wife. Being in this helpless situation Ajjunae started questioning the existence of the yaksha Moggarapani, who was standing idle to these atrocities: if the deity was in fact real, would it not do something to help him? Noting the doubts in Ajjunae's mind Moggarapani entered Ajjunae's body and effectively possessed him. Possessed by the yaksha, Ajjunae was now able to break loose and consequently killed the entire gang including his wife, using a heavy iron mace. Ajjunae remained in his possessed state and Moggarapani did not leave him for days. Instead the possessed Ajjunae went on to kill six other men and one woman everyday, like he had done on that fatal day of the attack. The people of Rayagihe were frightened and the King issued a warning to his people concerning the possessed madman.
In another part of town, a rich merchant named Sudamsane heard that a Jain ascetic was coming to visit. He decided to go and show his veneration despite the fact that he could be attacked by the possessed Ajjunae. He confidently went on his way and sure enough, the possessed Ajjunae saw him and charged towards him to kill him. But Sudamsane remained calm, joined his palms, gave homage to the Jinas and declared that he would become a monk. The deity Moggarapani, acting through the possessed Ajjunae, still tried to attack the merchant, but without result. Instead Sudamsane stared at the possessed Ajjunae with the effect that Moggarapani left his body and went back to his shrine taking with him the iron mace. In that very moment Ajjunae collapsed. He woke up shortly afterwards and Sudamsane explained to him what had happened and that he was on his way to greet a visiting Jain ascetic. Ajjunae, having regained control of his own body and actions, decided to join him. Reaching the ascetic they heard his sermon and Ajjunae was convinced by the doctrine on the spot and became a monk the same day. At the same time he took a special vow to stay in constant mortification, due to the wrongdoings he had caused when possessed. Keeping his vow, enduring the abuse he got from the many inhabitants of Rayagihe who had lost relatives due to his killings, he was eventually liberated.
Though somewhat unclear in its moral message, the story allows for the possibility of possession while squarely placing it under the supremacy of the Jain doctrine. At first it would seem that justice is being done when the possessed Ajjunae breaks free to stop the assault, but the following events serve more as a warning of what can happen when invoking deities in this manner. In the end, however, a man that was once involved in deity possession reached the highest religious goal of Jainism.
A very different kind of possession is treated in the Yogashastra written by the twelfth-century Jain scholar Hemacandra. In its fifth chapter Hemacandra explains how one can enter the body of various creatures through controlling one's breath. But we are advised only to enter dead bodies, beginning with small birds. Hemacandra explains: ‘However, entering into living bodies has not been described out of fear of sin’.Footnote 26
In the following chapter Hemacandra offers a critique of such forms of possession, arguing that they are only tricks, and that such skills or practices will not lead to liberation:
This [unorthodox method of] entering into another's body [by means of controlling breath] creates merely a miracle [and still] one may or may not accomplish [the path of liberation] even after a long time of practice. . .even if one has accomplished the incredible passage into another body, it is [still] not possible to attain the path of liberation for one who is exclusively devoted to such skills.Footnote 27
This sort of critique is typical in Jainism, clearly separating soteriology from other forms of religion. Being possessed by deities and possessing others are both possible, but they can, and will, lead to harmful karmic activity and are therefore not advisable. According to these sources Jainism does not deny or forbid possession, but it also does not recommend it.
Another genre of Jain literature depicting possession is the hagiography of various illustrious monks, often linked to the histories of Jain clans. There are for instance stories of various Jain ascetics who cured people from spirit possession.Footnote 28 In clan histories we often meet deities who are deceased members of the clan. Having met a violent or unusual death they proceed to possess others in the clan. These deities are known as vyantaras, and are troublesome until the Jain ascetic convert them or force them to protect the Jain community.Footnote 29 Typically, the deity or spirit in question is revealed through the possessed subject and the deity's demands are given through the mouth of the possessed. Before she became the Jain clan deity Saciya Mata, Camunda Devi possessed lay Jains demanding to be offered what she could ‘crunch and munch’, i.e., meat offerings.Footnote 30 As a response, a Jain ascetic gave a sermon to the possessed person and thereby converted the meat-eating Camunda into the vegetarian Saciya Mata. She became a Jain deity. In these stories possession is not something positive, but simply a method of communication through which superhuman forces can be pacified, controlled and properly categorized within the Jain cosmos.
Moving into recent times, some Jain women go to the pilgrimage site of Padampura to expel spirits that possess them. From Humphrey and LaidlawFootnote 31 we learn of a man who took his possessed wife to Padampura for this purpose. He explained how they sat her in front of the Jina and performed various Jain rituals: ‘We started doing abhishek, puja, arti, singing hymns, everything’.Footnote 32 In this case, like in the stories of the eventually pacified vyantaras, we can only conclude that Jains, like so many other religious groups in South Asia, are tormented and troubled by spirits of various kinds. But although they share this problem with other non-Jain Indians, the remedies employed in these stories are specific to Jainism. They are all examples of specific Jain treatments or solutions to a pan-Indian problem of spirit possession.
An even clearer example of this last point is given by Vallely.Footnote 33 Conducting fieldwork among Jain TerapanthiFootnote 34 ascetics in Ladnun, she came across a samani Footnote 35 who was possessed by a ghost (bhut). Trying to drive the ghost away, the ascetics employed a specific mantra, famous for its exorcizing power. The mantra itself was made up of the first letters of famous Terapanthi monks.Footnote 36 Somewhat surprisingly, we also learn that these and other methods of exorcism are described in the ascetic order's guidebook.Footnote 37 Not only do we here have a specific Jain solution to possession, we also see that possession is not something foreign to Jainism even among ascetics.
Going all the way back to canonical literature, the contemporary dealing with possession is certainly not a new trend in Jainism. The story of Ajjunae tells us that the Jain doctrine has the power to subdue malign spirits, and the same logic is found in all other forms of exorcism we have seen. But when we now move to Nakoda we will find a completely different kind of possession, namely the positive oracular one.
Possession in Nakoda
Nakoda is a Jain pilgrimage site that has become extremely popular in recent decades. It is located in western Rajasthan close to Jodhpur. Its main attraction is the protective deity of the site, Nakoda Bhairava. He is thought to be very powerful, granting boons to his devotees. In contrast to the Jinas who are beyond the reach of any prayer or petition, Nakoda Bhairava bestows his Jain devotees with both health and wealth. The main temple in Nakoda is dedicated to the Jina Parshvanath, and Nakoda Bhairava is placed beside him, right outside the inner sanctum of the temple.
On my first day of fieldwork in Nakoda I witnessed the first, of what was to become several possessions. Since the pilgrimage site has both Jain and non-Jain visitors, I first suspected that the possessed were not Jain, but quickly learned that many Jains partake in the cult. Unlike the possessions Humphrey and Laidlaw witnessed in Padampura, the ones in Nakoda did not fall into a predictable pattern of more or less standardized acts.Footnote 38 Instead they were spread both geographically and in time, covering both genders, varying in length and intensity, and provoking different responses from the surrounding people. One of the reasons why the possessions differ in Padampura and Nakoda is that the respective possessive agents at the two locations are different.
Especially during the annual fair held in Nakoda on the day of Parshvanath's birthday, I witnessed an array of possessions during both day time and evening, puja Footnote 39 and arati, inside and outside the temple. Although I would be surprised if people do not also come to Nakoda in the hope of being cured of malign spirit possession (this is, as we will see, in fact mentioned in hymns and brochures connected to Nakoda), the main pattern seemed to be that people were possessed by Nakoda Bhairava himself. This was repeatedly explained to me during the possessions, the typical statement being that ‘God comes inside man’. ‘God’ referred to Nakoda Bhairava, and not the Jina. Everyone was very clear on this point. There seems to be no mentioning of the Bhairava being a possessive agent in the literary sources on Nakoda. I have pointed out, following Smith, that we can divide most South Asian possessions into two groups: the negative disease-producing possession, and the positive oracular possession.Footnote 40 Whilst all earlier studies and mention of Jain possession belong to the former,Footnote 41 most cases in Nakoda belong to the latter.
I suspect that the time of the annual fair is a time in which Nakoda is prone to more possessions than usual. On my visits to Nakoda at other occasions, and according to other reports, possessions usually take place on Sundays, during the aratis of Nakoda Bhairava. This was also the time in which I saw most cases of it, on regular weekends and also during the fair. The evening arati of Nakoda Bhairava is the last of the daily pujari-led activities in the temple. Those who get the honour of performing the arati Footnote 42 will stand in front of the Bhairava and after they have received their ritual items, the pujari will start singing the Bhairava's arati hymn whilst beating the temple bell. At this moment all attention is directed towards the Bhairava.
Most people join in the hymn singing, clapping their hands to the rhythm while gazing at the deity. The singing reaches its peak after approximately three and a half minutes when the pujari significantly increases the tempo for the last 30 seconds. It is mainly during the singing that Nakoda Bhairava possesses his subjects. Here, many of the observations done by Humphrey and LaidlawFootnote 43 in Padampura coincide with mine. Possessions mostly occurred during the evening arati while the rhythmically clapping congregation sang the hymns as the pujari hit his bell producing deafening clangs.Footnote 44 The possessed people would lose themselves in the act of clapping and singing while making continuous and increasingly intense rotating or rocking movements and breathing convulsively.Footnote 45 In some cases they would collapse and lie still for a short while or continue to move frantically around until someone would assist them to come closer before the Bhairava.
On one occasion, when I was invited to join a family who had won the right to perform the arati, I witnessed close at hand a young man as he became possessed. First singing and clapping, I could see his face twitching as he got more and more intense and swifter in the forward rocking movements of his upper body while hyperventilating. Then, he suddenly stiffened, his limbs apparently completely frozen, and his eyes wide open with a fear-provoking look on his face. His hands were folded and clutched together with great force. During his rushed movements people had cleared up around where he was standing, right in front of the Jina. One young boy was crying while clinging to his mother. At this point some men assisted the possessed man towards the Bhairava and tried to bend him down. He was then taken into an area inside the temple, where all worshippers go after having darshana of the Bhairava. People flocked around, clearly engrossed in the drama. Meanwhile the possessed man was held down on the floor, and a man started stroking downwards on his legs. They also hit him on his back, all the while trying to open up his folded hands without success. Several people told me of this phenomenon explaining that since the possessed will get the powers of Nakoda Bhairava, their strength would be enormous. That it was impossible to open the grip of the folded hands of the possessed was therefore evidence that the Bhairava was present in him.
The people who stepped in to help the possessed man were not working in the temple. They did not appear to know the man and their help and assistance was spontaneous. It seemed obvious, however, that they had experience in dealing with possessed people. But not all possessed subjects got such treatment; many possessions were quite short and the possessed would come out of the trance without any assistance. In the middle of a large puja held during the fair, one of the main sponsors got up to dance in honour of the Jina and his protector deity in front of the crowd. Suddenly he collapsed on the floor before kneeling in front of the idols with his palms joined. This quick possession appeared to me to be a display of perfected devotion. While some possessions were celebrated with declarations of the Bhairava's power, the young above-mentioned man with his clutched hands seemed to induce fear.
At one point this young possessed man was taken to a separate room by the pujari. I was not able to find out what had been done in that room. He was the only one I saw who was taken there. Before this, however, he sat up for a moment, made strange facial expressions and began speaking with what appeared to be an unusually deep voice. More people gathered around him at this point, for it marked what has become a speciality of Nakoda: the oracular possession. In these sessions, the Bhairava communicates with his worshippers through his possessed subjects. Before turning to the peculiarities of this phenomenon it is worth mentioning that many people came to get blessings from this possessed man while he was possessed. This was also true in the case of other possessed subjects. Flocking around those who were possessed, people would proceed to touch their feet and bodies or bend down before them, not dissimilar to how devotees worshipped the idol of the Bhairava. But unlike the still-standing idol, the possessed would often place their hands on the heads of devotees that wanted their blessings. This appears to be a clear indication that the possessions in Nakoda are considered to be positive, induced not by malign spirits but by a deity. Possessed subjects became objects of devotional attention in ways resembling the worship of Nakoda Bhairava's idol.
The people who are possessed by Nakoda Bhairava offer two things to those interested: the general blessings we have just seen, but also oracular services. In the first category fall all those actions in which people would simply touch the possessed or get touched by them, usually through a pat on the head. This was clearly more rehearsed by some who were possessed than by others. One man I witnessed was allowed to stand next to the Bhairava (the guards and temple servants usually make sure that no one is allowed to remain in front of the Bhairava for too long, otherwise they will block the traffic of eager devotees), touching everyone who passed, thereby giving them the direct blessings of Nakoda Bhairava. He displayed some signs of being possessed although remaining a lot more controlled than is usual. We will return to this person later for he was by some accused to be a faker. A woman I saw was sitting, rocking back and forth whilst stretching her hands out to bless whoever placed their heads under her searching hands.
The oracular services provided by the possessed were advocated to me by many Jains. One could ask anything about the future, I was told, and one would get advice on what to do. Be it family matters such as marriage, or business matters such as investments; the Bhairava would give you the answer through the speech of the possessed person. It was not possible for me to record the verbal interactions between the persons asking questions and the possessed. Interestingly, the already quoted Yogashastra of Hemacandra also describes a type of oracular possession in which a deity is invoked into a young girl who can then answer questions regarding one's longevity.Footnote 46 This ritual, generally known as svasthavesha, is described in various Shaiva and Buddhist Tantras, and in these texts, the presenter of this secret ritual is often named Bhairava.Footnote 47
One woman I witnessed was doing the above-mentioned circular movements of the upper body very rapidly before two men, presumably in her family, led her to the open area inside the temple where she sat down and continued the movements in a slower fashion. Finally she stopped and people came to sit down around her. The first, most eager, person began relating some problem or conflict that needed advice or simply asked a question concerning future outcomes. The possessed woman, presumably with the Bhairava controlling her movements and responses, then answered in a composed and calm manner the more than dozen people who approached her. Her eyes were closed during the entire session which lasted about 20 minutes.
Jain explanation of possession
These patterns of possession are not unique in South Asia, but they are unique as seen in the perspective of Jain studies. Observing a Jain woman becoming possessed during a puja, Kelting noted that some of the Jains around her would not acknowledge that the woman was in fact possessed. Referring to possession, one of the observers simply stated that: ‘No, we Jains don't do that’.Footnote 48 Although usually not flatly denied by the many lay Jains with whom I discussed possessions in Nakoda and in general, many of them certainly underscored that this sort of activity had nothing to do with Jainism.Footnote 49 Yet, during my months of fieldwork, I gathered many different opinions on possession in Nakoda and its relationship to Jainism. The answers I got from Jains did not fall into one singular pattern, and not one of the people I spoke to would agree with my suggestion that this might perhaps be unsuitable activity for a Jain temple or directly criticize it. This stands in contrast to the one possession Kelting observed, after which she concluded that: ‘To lose control was unacceptable and doubly so inside the Jina's temple’.Footnote 50 A sample of some of the responses I got will demonstrate the heterogeneity of Jain responses to possession. One businessman, belonging to the Sthanakvasi sect, stated: ‘Since I don't know much about this, I should not comment upon these things. Whether it should be there or not, whether it is true or not’. On the reality of the phenomenon he continued: ‘This is a myth I suppose, but you know, still people believe, so in all these matters one cannot comment. It's all belief—shraddha. So there is no logic. No logic works before belief’. The same reluctance to take a definite stand with regard to possession was repeated by another: ‘I cannot say much about it. I have seen this, but I don't know since I have never experienced it myself’.
A Jain scholar, well versed in the Jain scriptures, who even referred to the story of the garland-maker Ajjunae, and knew that possession is a possibility according to Jain canonical literature, still stated: ‘No no, Bheru-ji [Nakoda Bhairava] can't come in that way’. He further explained:
It may be a drama also. And it may come to some people really. Really in the sense, they are mentally not healthy. They have some complex. And due to this complex this happens, this occurs. In India we see some societies, in the villages, where it usually happens. It is mental disease I think, which is expressed in those situations’.
Such an interpretation fits well into a long tradition in anthropology of using psychoanalytic and psychiatric explanations of possession.Footnote 51 A very different perspective came from a woman who had recently retired from teaching political science and who conducted distance courses in Jainism. She stated that: ‘It [possessions] can happen. According to our Jain philosophy also, they can come, yeah, they can come. If you call them, then they will come’. Another Jain business man's response to my enquiries was simply: ‘It is not Jainism. It is not Jainism’. A practicing Jain lawyer expressed his doubts in the following manner:
We never know if it is Bheru-ji or not. But at times I have found that whatever Bheru-ji says turns out to be correct. . .If he is only coming to one person, you may have a doubt that he is not genuine. But I've seen different people, so maybe it's correct. But I am not very sure, because you can't test.
A former administrative worker (trustee) at the pilgrimage site commented:
We, who are living in the scientific world, we are not able to convince ourselves how it can happen. But it is happening; we cannot deny that when we see it with our own eyes.
One informant summarized it thus:
There are two sections of people. One says it is all bogus. One says: how can it be bogus when a person gets so powerful that not even five people can hold them down, even if it's an old lady?
While many lay Jains clearly felt that possession did not have anything to with Jainism, they would not openly criticize it. This was not true of the people who were more familiar with the possessions in Nakoda. Both a long standing administrative employee of the pilgrimage site and other Jains I met in Nakoda (including one of the temple servants) stated that most of the possessions in Nakoda were not real (banavati), but artificial and mere trickery (dhong). In other words, they were not criticizing whether or not this was appropriate behaviour in a Jain temple for Jains, rather, they were questioning the validity of the possession itself. Most people only acted, I was told, in order to ‘promote themselves’.
Probing further I learned that the man who had taken up a position next to the Bhairava and was allowed to stay there during the evening arati, and who had acted out what seemed to me to be a quite controlled possession, had his own shrine near his home. It appears that through the possession, he—and other possessed subjects—communicated to the others that he had a special connection with Nakoda Bhairava. The idea is that those who had been possessed would be contacted, after the session, by people who needed some ritual assistance involving possession. This needs further investigation, but if we are to accept the critique of possession as faked, it seems that whatever else a possession might be an expression of, in Nakoda, it can also work as an advertisement of special spiritual gifts. The possessions in Nakoda, therefore, were not openly criticized by lay Jains because they somehow go against ideals of self-control or the ‘true spirit of Jainism’, but rather because some of them were faked in order to attract potential clients.
The fact that there is no mention of the positive, oracular possession in the brochures and literature connected to Nakoda produced by Jains or scholars, could indicate that this is a new development. The brochures, hymns and books on Nakoda do however link Nakoda Bhairava with protection from negative possession. One brochure presents the various reasons as to why people want to have darshan of Nakoda Bhirava. One of them is to get rid of spirits and ghosts (bhut-pret).Footnote 52 The popular list of the 8 miracles (camatkar) of the Bhairava found in various brochures includes his power of providing freedom from ghosts, male and female evil spirits, and witches. Nakoda Bhairava is also praised in various hymns for driving these problematic forces away or keeping them at bay.Footnote 53 None of these sources mention that the Bhairava himself possesses his devotees. He manifests himself as a dancing boy or through a voice, but there is no mention of him possessing humans. In the various mytho-historical accounts of Nakoda's history, Nakoda Bhairava does appear in several dreams of both laity and mendicants, revealing valuable information such as the whereabouts of hidden Jina idols. One could perhaps argue that it is not a long way from appearing in peoples’ dreams, which is already quite intimate, to possessing people. But while the appearances of deities and other auspicious elements in dreams have a long history and an important place in Jainism, oracular possession does not.
All this seems to indicate that the possession cult in Nakoda has gone from being about getting rid of ghosts and evil spirits with the help of the Bhairava to getting possessed by the Bhairava himself. The two types of possessions are very different, but only the first is in conflict with Jain tenets. There is a widespread tradition in India, including Rajasthan where Nakoda Bhairava resides,Footnote 54 for believing in lingering souls of people who have had untimely and premature deaths. Such lingering souls are often found to harass people and sometimes possess individuals. Since Jain doctrine states that the soul of a dead body is reincarnated within less than a second after the death of an individual, this is not possible. When coming across a Jain family struggling with such a lingering soul, Vallely discovered that one member of the family would not participate in a ritual to appease and remove this lingering soul on the grounds that it was ‘contrary to Jainism’.Footnote 55 His critique then was inspired by Jain doctrine.
The same is hardly true when possessions are critiqued on the grounds that they are faked. One way of understanding this critique lies in Jainism's preference for controlled states of consciousness and the disembodied, both of which are downplayed in possession.Footnote 56 To state that most cases of possession are fake is in fact an attempt to limit them. Talking to a senior Digambar nun who had seen possessed women in Padampura, I was told that most cases there were also faked. She effectively explained them away as psychiatric cases. Possession in Padampura even further challenges important tenets of Jain religious teachings since the possessed mainly go to the Jina to be exorcized and not necessarily to visit the residing protective deity. Doing fieldwork with such women, Vallely was presented with a Jina that was not understood as transcendent and detached, but rather as immanent, involved and even caring.Footnote 57 No such claims are made in Nakoda, and furthermore, the possessive agent is not some lingering soul. Still, most possessions are critiqued on the grounds that they are faked.
Possession in Jainism and Buddhism
In Buddhism Transformed, Gombrich and Obeyeskere,Footnote 58 describe cases of possession among Theravāda Buddhists in Sri Lanka that can be compared with those in Nakoda. They conclude that there is only one ‘truly Buddhist way to deal with. . .spirits’, and that is to convert them.Footnote 59 Both Jain and Buddhist canonical literature feature spirits and superhuman forces of various kinds that attack humans, and the typical solution is to subdue and convert them from aggressive foes into powerful protectors. In South Asian culture such attacks involve various types of harm and injury and sometimes also possession. But as in Nakoda, Gombrich and Obeyesekere discovered that possession could also be something positive in Sri Lanka, and that ‘patients could become priests’. In these cases the possessive agent changed from ghosts and spirits (bhut-prets) to deities (devas).Footnote 60 This, the authors claimed, was a recent change in the Sinhala religious scene.Footnote 61 If the possessed succeed in their claims of not being patients but the vehicle of gods, they would sometimes set up shrines in their homes and establish a clientele.Footnote 62 It is hard to determine whether this is also a ‘recent change’ in Jain religiosity, but the many parallels are obvious, including the alleged ‘fake possessions’ which are induced, perhaps, by people who wish to establish themselves as priests, parallel to the Sinhalese cases. But while Gombrich and Obeyesekere found that mostly women were possessed and interpreted this as an attempted elevation of their position in Sinhala society,Footnote 63 the possessions in Nakoda appear more unisex.
A feature also not prominent in Nakoda in contrast to Buddhism in Sri Lanka, is mendicant involvement in possession cults. I never saw any monks or nuns involved in the possessions in Nakoda. At one point, during the annual fair celebrations, a monk was present in the temple while possessions were going on. Although clearly within his field of vision, he never looked at the possessed subjects directly and seemed to ignore them altogether. Answering my questions as to whether possessions are to be tolerated in Jain temples, lay Jains answered that, although they themselves were not sure, they felt convinced that the mendicants would not approve of such behaviour. The fact that lay Jains feel that the experts of their religion (monks and nuns) will not believe in or encourage possession is in line with their statements that possession has nothing to do with Jainism as such. What they were saying is that while possessions might be real, they have nothing to do with Jain soteriology, and in this they are completely in line with the Jain scriptures.
Lay Jains made similar points concerning miracles (camatkar) when LaidlawFootnote 64 insistently questioned how miracles by gurus and deities like Nakoda Bhairava could be possible, considering Jain karma teachings. This relates to the widespread idea that Jainism cannot be practiced completely successfully by the laity. The idea is so incorporated that a Jain lawyer could explain to me that one should expiate for extra-Jain religious activities such as worshipping Nakoda Bhairava and conducting Lakshmi puja,Footnote 65 both very popular among Shvetambar Jains, during the annual expiation rite known as pratikraman. In other words, Jain religiosity includes practices not sanctioned in Jain scriptures and rites to make amends for those practices. The degree of reflexivity in Jain religiosity is therefore rather extraordinary. In relation to laypeople's simultaneous belief in possession and the ascetics rejection of it, it would seem that Jains are also saying that they partake in religious practice not directly sanctioned by Jainism such as possession, because ‘Jainism is impossible’.Footnote 66
Gombrich and Obeyesekere make a distinction between ecstatic cults with strong emotions and love for a god—typical of the less educated—and the contemplative, withdrawal of senses, related to the better educated.Footnote 67 At the same time they agree that these expressions of religiosity can be combined and give some examples of this. For instance, they came across Buddhists who became possessed through meditation, or ‘unsoteriological contemplation’.Footnote 68 They argue that this combination is not without contradiction and conflict, and that their combination is a new trend.Footnote 69 Possession, we learned from the quote at the beginning of this paper, is the very opposite of self-control, and self-control is a major theme in Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism. Thus possession was censored out and emotionalism opposed by these religions.Footnote 70 This opposition, between self-control and emotionalism, or asceticism (tapas) and devotion (bhakti), has been challenged in two fairly recent articles on Jainism by John Cort.
Cort argues that the two forms of religiosity are ‘not so much alternative practices as they are mutually reinforcing practices in Jainism’.Footnote 71 He demonstrates how Jain intellectuals and religious teachings have long argued that Jains can advance on their road to salvation, not only through practicing asceticism, but also through the enthusiastic devotion of others who perform asceticism, or by emotional devotion of asceticism itself.Footnote 72 Hence bhakti need not be theistic. This is not a recent invention or necessarily the result of merely borrowing from the Hindu traditions, in fact, Jains have performed and discussed bhakti for over 2,000 years.Footnote 73 We also learn of Shvetambar Jains who often combine devotional and ascetic activities while visiting pilgrimage sites.Footnote 74 Here they engage in fasting and various devotional activities: ‘Asceticism is done in the spirit of devotion, and devotion is done in the spirit of asceticism’.Footnote 75
This is true in Nakoda as well, but there the devotion extends beyond ascetics and asceticism. In Nakoda Jains are displaying strong emotions towards a deity. During the annual fair, a great number of lay Jains complete fasts of different kinds. Some of these fasts also involve not talking. I observed one group of men who combined asceticism with devotion. The entire group was fasting, abstaining not only from food but also from talk. Abstention from talk is a well-known practice in Jainism and it led the group of men to develop an extensive sign language during the three days of the fair. But along these practices of asceticism, they also performed various forms of devotion such as hymn-singing,Footnote 76 dancing and participation in auctions to win the rights to perform various forms of worship. Moreover, at least one of the men in the group was also possessed on more than one occasion by the Bhairava. He was in other words combining self-control and emotionalism, asceticism and possession, tapas and bhakti. There was clearly no opposition between the two forms of religiosity for this man. He was emulating the Jina and his asceticism and getting possessed by the Jina's protective deity at the same time. While Cort has demonstrated that this combination need not be foreign to Jain philosophy, this man demonstrated it in practice.
Possession and soteriology
So far we have been dealing with possession among lay Jains, but there are in fact instances of possession among Jain ascetics as well. In her fieldwork among Jain female ascetics in Ladnun, Vallely came across several stories and incidents of ‘demonFootnote 77-attacks’, although the ascetics generally would dismiss such demons as unworthy of their attention.Footnote 78 In most of these stories, the ascetics were tormented by demons, but not possessed. Such stories of ascetics battling with evil spirits and finally winning due to their ascetic power were popular, well-known and openly discussed. Some nuns had even become famous as ‘demon-bashers’.Footnote 79 In other instances the demons would in fact possess the female ascetics. Possessions, however, were not much talked of. Although Vallely was told that it was very rare, she quickly learned that it was more concealed than uncommon. They were ‘downplayed, trivialized, and deliberately omitted from popular discourse’.Footnote 80
According to Vallely, possession among ascetics is problematic because it threatens the distinction between the worldly (laukik) and the transcendental (lokottar). She argues that the ideological split between these two realms is used to construct Jain reality and its moral universe.Footnote 81 The ascetics strive to create and demarcate this split, and represent the transcendental.Footnote 82 She continues:
Possession, therefore, is very distressing—not because it denotes the ‘occupancy’ of an individual by another spiritual being, which is accepted as possible, but, I suggest, because it threatens to blur the distinction between the spiritual and the worldly—to collapse the boundaries between ascetics and shravaks [laity].Footnote 83
There are many accounts of Jain ascetics being attacked by demons and evil spirits of various kinds. In a famous story of the 23rd Jina Parshvanath, he is continuously followed and troubled by his ‘transmigratory moral alter’ Kamath. In their final encounter Kamath attacks Parshvanath in the form of a demon, but in the end Parshvanath wins because of his ascetic power. Ascetics dealing with demon-attacks in Ladnun is not something new. That Vallely's ascetics are troubled by such beings and even possessed by them does not run counter to Jain teachings, but what is problematic, and perhaps embarrassing, is that they do not conquer and subdue these powers. In the Jain universe, demons and evil spirits exist, but the power of Jain ascetics, the main bearers of Jain doctrine, is always superior to their powers. Remaining completely undisturbed by Kamath's attacks, Parshvanath continues his meditation and finally reaches omniscience. When Jain ascetics are possessed, they are not inconsistent with Jain teachings, but they have lost a battle they should win. It indicates something is wrong in the practice of the individual ascetic, or worse, that the Jain doctrine is not supreme.
If we compare the possessions in Nakoda with those in Ladnun, we find that they are different in many respects. The possessions in Ladnun are considered involuntary and negative, they are induced by demons and befall ascetics. The possessions in Nakoda are considered positive, they are induced by a deity and happen to the laity.Footnote 84 It is difficult to determine whether the possessions in Nakoda are voluntarily induced, but in the alleged cases of those who have their own shrines that they wish to promote, the possessions are arguably more voluntary than involuntary. Looking at Jain scriptures we see that possessions can happen. However, there seems to be no ‘charter’ for positive possessions as they transpire in Nakoda. If Jain ascetics were involved in actively seeking to be possessed by deities it would go against central ideas in Jain teachings and threaten the hierarchy of the Jain cosmos wherein ascetics are placed above deities. Cort states that, since they cannot be possessed by Jinas, Jains. . .have always been highly suspicious of practices that in any way approach possession, for that possession, by definition, is by an inferior, transmigatory being.Footnote 85
In Ladnun, Jain ascetics are in fact possessed, but these possessions are involuntary and negative. This is not an impossibility according to Jain teachings, but the problem is that asceticism should win over the crude power of demons. These instances are hushed down because Jain ascetics represent and are directly involved with Jain soteriology which does inculcate self-control, but also because they represent a blow towards the power of asceticism and the Jain doctrine. They are lost battles in a struggle that Jain ascetics should win.
In Nakoda there is also evidence of tensions even though the possession cult only involves the laity. Most of the Jains I met in Nakoda and elsewhere would separate possession activities from their idea of Jainism. But the reason for this separation need not be found only in theology. Yes, Jain soteriology does inculcate self-control and decorum, but Jain soteriology is mainly salvation technique for the few specialized. Jainism has always been soteriologically elitist.Footnote 86 When Jains speak of Jainism, they typically start talking about Jain soteriology. But when we as scholars talk of Jainism as a religion, we mean something more. That some Jains state that Jains do not get possessedFootnote 87 or otherwise reject possession altogether need not come from Jain religious teachings promoting self-control. Jain rejection of possession, I suggest, is also connected to modern discourses related to Jainism being rational, scientific and modern as opposed to superstitious, irrational and rural.
If one comes across an introductory book or article on Jainism in English produced by Jains, one is very likely to find the words ‘science’ or ‘scientific’ several times. This is part of a popular discourse of what one might call a modernized Jainism, a Jainism that is presented as superbly rational and in complete harmony with various branches of science that only in recent times have begun to discover what the Jinas have always known. This modernized Jainism has little or no space for possession.Footnote 88 One booklet on Jainism published in 2010 states that there is ‘no provision for free souls roaming here and there’ and that although there does exist certain deities (devs), they have ‘their own bodies and can't get into somebody else's body’.Footnote 89 While the existence of ghosts are refuted on the ground that souls are immediately reborn, possession is explained as a ‘psychiatric case’.Footnote 90 In his first argument the author is using teachings found in Jain scriptures, in the latter he is referring to western psychology.
There is a certain overlap between an etic perspective on Jainism highlighting and privileging soteriology and the emic perspective found in modernized Jainism. Both fail to acknowledge the richness of Jain religiosity which includes spirit and deity possession. In the words of Folkert, ‘the Jain layperson. . .leads a richly varied religious life, one that is not directed at withdrawal from worldly affairs in the way that monastic rule demands’.Footnote 91 A Jain rejecting the possibility of possession must look outside Jain scriptures—and perhaps to modern psychology instead—to find support for his claim. A Jain rejecting the validity of possession in Jain soteriology is in line with Jain scriptures. The toning down of possession among mendicants in Ladnun is related to soteriology and ideals of self-control, while the toning down of possession in Nakoda is more related to a modernized view of Jainism.
Conclusion
In the preceding pages I have tried to demonstrate that the long and rich history of Jainism includes possessions of various kinds to which we can add the oracular possessions in Nakoda. Possession is not foreign to, or new, in Jainism. Why then, I asked in the introduction, does Jain possession come as a surprise? While it could be that the contemporary instances of the phenomenon are rare exceptions in the history of Jainism, I have argued that the surprise is the outcome of certain representations of Jainism, both etic and emic in nature, in which soteriology is given such an emphasis that other aspects of Jain religiosity are forgotten or overlooked.
It is soteriology that makes Jainism peculiar. We noted above how Hemacandra explained how to possess other creatures while simultaneously criticizing possession in the light of soteriology. In this way Jains have divided soteriology from other practices of religion. This explains why many lay Jains in Nakoda did not oppose the possessions, but at the same time conceptually separated it from their religion, which they identify mainly with soteriology. Following Hemacandra, most Jains were generally not enthusiastic about possession, but they did not condemn it. Jainism, like Buddhism, started out as a technique for salvation, that is, as soteriology. In the very beginning, the ascetics involved in this technique were the only Jains.Footnote 92 Later, however, Jainism evolved into a fully-fledged religion of the masses. Still, its main doctrines revolved around soteriology. When Jains are talking about what Jainism is or is not, they deploy similar divisions to those found in Hemacandra. But when we as scholars try to understand Jain religiosity, we find that it is much more than soteriology. The possessions in Nakoda are indirectly connected to Jain soteriology through the fact that Nakoda Bhairava is the protector of, and resides in, the temple of Parshvanath, but the cult itself is concerned with this-worldly matters and not soteriology. Still, Jains in Nakoda are able to combine ascetic practices such as fasting, an important part of Jain soteriology, and possession. In the perspective of Jain soteriology, spirit or deity possession is not helpful, but that is true for much of the everyday behaviour and conduct of any lay Jain.
Possession is not one thing and hence there cannot be one Jain attitude towards possession from the point of view of doctrine. Some forms of possession, such as those where the possessive agent is a lingering soul of a deceased individual and the process of exorcism involves a Jina, are more at variance with Jain doctrine than others. The possession cult in Nakoda is not in open doctrinal conflict with Jainism, but it is still questioned and somewhat critiqued by certain Jains. A modernized Jain of today's India will often dismiss all kinds of possession as rural and foreign to the Jain religion that he understands to be a rational and scientific philosophy. Hemacandra argues that an advanced ascetic can possess other living beings, but warns against it since it may lead to harm, and further states that it has no real, soteriological value.
The possession cult in Nakoda appears to have changed over time. Local sources indicate that Nakoda Bhairava can give you freedom from evil spirits, but today the main pattern appears to be that devotees are possessed by Nakoda Bhairava himself. This, then, is a special type of Jain possession for it seems that one could actively induce possessions, a questionable activity from the perspective of soteriology. Still, as a lay practice, possession can be found on the same continuum as other forms of bhakti, and bhakti is an integral part of Jain religiosity.Footnote 93 Jain bhakti, however, is to be directed towards ascetics and the values they stand for, not towards deities such as Nakoda Bhairava. Even so, it tells us that emotional forms of worship, to which possession belongs, were not absent in Jainism before lay Jains got possessed in Nakoda. If mendicants were to induce possessions it would run counter to central Jain teachings, not only of spiritual hierarchy, but also of self-control. Hemacandra described how an ascetic can possess others, because as long as he is the possessive agent, the ascetic is still in control of his actions. The reverse is not permissible.
