Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.

The dangers of social interaction
Sadhus or holy men are continually on a pilgrimage.
There are in general two ways sadhus live. On the one
hand, they can stay and settle down either at a temple, in
a cave or make their own temple and house in the place
where they feel themselves confident by living in the
presence and the co-existence with God. On the other
hand, they may wander from place to place visiting
different pilgrim sites. In most cases it is a combination
of these two ways of living. According to some, it is
preferable not to stay more than three months at each
place because then one starts to get attached to people,
places, and its materiality. Both these approaches to life
are anti-social seen from society, and the refusal of being
a part of society is also a way of denying any
hierarchies. Consequently, they cannot be a part of a
social elite because they aim to free themselves from
these structures.
It is impossible, however, not to live in a society,
although this is the aim of the yogis. A social
relationship involves minimum two aspects, interaction
between at least two actors and some mutual ideas about
their relationship (Keesing 1981:212-213). A sadhu
means literally a “doer of good acts”, and he is at least in
principle obliged to perform social goods and deeds. The
outstanding examples of some of the “real” sadhus who
perform miracles and demonstrate essential truths of
Hinduism, and together with general beliefs by the
common people that sadhus live a life in celibacy and
austerity, make the sadhu society an important part of
contemporary Hinduism. Lay Hindus perceive the
holiest sadhus more or less as godlike. Depending on the
status, context and relation, the sadhus may be addressed
as baba, acharya, guru or swami. Baba means simply
father and grandfather and denotes all respected and holy
men. Acharya is an instructor normally in the traditional
sciences and in sacred knowledge. Guru is a more
restricted term denoting one’s spiritual preceptor, and
swami denotes the dame but only in a Shaivite (Shiva)
context. Gurus may have considerable wealth and
sometimes significant political influence (Jaer 1995:134-
136).
Being holy implies being purer than the rest of society.
But being pure is also a state of vulnerability. In religion
the appreciation of moral obligation and duty is seen as a
claim of the deities upon man. The “holy” can be
recognised as that which commands our respect by
which the values are acknowledged inwardly (Otto
1958:51). Crucial in this regard is the atonement of sins
because “man in his “profaneness” is not worthy to stand
in the presence of the holy one, and that his own entire
personal unworthiness might defile even holiness itself”
(ibid:54). The sacred and the profane are two modes of
being in the world. In the sacred world the homogeneity
of space is broken and there is a revelation of absolute
reality and manifestation of a sacred ontology (Eliade
1987:21). In Hinduism there are no profane worlds or
51
modes of living but only various degrees of living in the
sacred world. The profane can be perceived as a
contaminated, sacred world – chaos. The sacred must
always be protected from the profane because “there is
always the danger that the sacred will invade the profane
and the profane invade the sacred. The sacred must be
continually protected from the profane by interdictions.
Thus, relations with the sacred are always expressed
through rituals of separation and demarcation and are
reinforced with beliefs in the danger of crossing
forbidden boundaries” (Douglas 1993:49).
Moreover, “the symbol of asceticism thus points in two
opposite directions at once. It offers a route of escape
from this world, yet it generates a power that is
necessary to sustain it. The renouncers transcends, or
even rejects, worldly hierarchy, yet the values he
represents are to work in its service” (Parry 1994:270).
The followers due to accusations might disparage an
ascetic, claiming that he is a mere performer of
supernatural tricks (ibid:258). If the sadhu uses his
magical powers for gaining material benefits, this is
intolerable (ibid:291). The ascetic is supposed to remain
completely independent of the social and material world,
but to achieve this spiritual aim he must depend upon
gifts from the householders in order to support himself.
The practice of Aghoris may be seen as solutions to this
problem by attaining, at least in theory, complete
autonomy (ibid:261). Similarly, meditating in caves for
years far away from other humans is another way of
being complete and free from the bondage of the world.
Total isolation and independence are necessary when
concentrating upon god.
There are several paradoxes regarding social interaction
and the process of socialising, seen both from a societal
and an individual point of view. The elite status some of
the sadhus have is dependent upon being reckoned and
acknowledged as holy; a status they can only achieve
and maintain through distribution of their spiritual
powers and capacities. Their knowledge is the superior
gift in an asymmetrical reciprocal exchange. It is their
duty and obligation as a part of their dharma to help and
distribute their knowledge and healing powers to attain
liberation and enlightenment. Hence, the sadhus are
dependent upon being acknowledged the religious
supremacy in society to achieve their position and status,
but they aim to transcend and go beyond this knowledge
and status. They want neither society nor its knowledge;
still they are dependent upon both, and when they are in
position to escape this world’s limitations and bondages
society demands their supernatural powers because they
define both religion and society. The aim is to be free
from society and its socialisation through interaction, but
it is impossible to be totally independent and live a nonsocial
life in this world. Society does not accept it, and
the creation, maintenance or loss of status is a matter of
balancing on a sharp edge between this world’s
obligations and the otherworldly liberations.