Bauls of Bengal

← Encyclopedia

The name comes before the sect. Bāul is usually traced to the Sanskrit vātula — “mad,” “windstruck,” a man the wind has gotten into — or to vyākula, “restless,” “scattered,” a mind that will not settle. The word turns up in Bengali writing from the fifteenth century in that plain sense, mad, generations before it named anyone in particular. When it finally attached to a community of singers it kept the charge intact. The Bauls have worn it without flinching: theirs is a deliberately disreputable holiness, indifferent to caste, suspicious of temples and mosques alike, at home on the road and unembarrassed to look like fools to the settled and the respectable. The madness is the credential. A man the wind has gotten into is a man no priest can keep.

They are not a single sect but a loose, braided current of wandering singer-mystics scattered across the Bengal region — today divided between West Bengal in India and Bangladesh, with a reach into Tripura and the Barak Valley — who are at once a heterodox devotional path and a musical genre. What binds them is a stance that is, in the first place, negative. They refuse caste distinction. They refuse the authority of the Vedas, the Puranas, the whole apparatus of scripture. They refuse temple, mosque, and idol, and the priest who stands between a person and the divine. In place of all of it they assert a single positive: that the absolute is to be found within the living human body and nowhere else — in the breath, in the cultivation of an inward state, in disciplines guarded between teacher and student — never in an external authority, a written law, or a place of pilgrimage. Whatever is in the universe, the songs hold, is in the body; so the body is the only temple worth entering.

Three braided streams

The Baul current is fed by three reservoirs that it refuses to keep separate, and its genius is precisely the refusal. The first is Vaishnava devotion in its most radical form. Bengal’s mainstream Krishna-piety — the ecstatic Gaudiya Vaishnavism that grew from Chaitanya in the sixteenth century — supplied the language of love and longing, of the soul as lover and the divine as beloved. But the Bauls draw less on the orthodox devotion than on its antinomian radicalization, the Sahajiya — the “natural” or “innate” path that turned that erotic-devotional vocabulary inward onto the body and made the union of lovers a figure for an inner work. From the Sahajiya comes the conviction that the divine drama is not enacted in heaven or in a temple but rehearsed within the practitioner.

The second stream is Bengali tantra: the doctrine the Bauls call deha-tattva, “the truth of the body.” Here the body is a microcosm, a small replica of the cosmos, mapped with rivers and moons and hidden cities that are at once ordinary words and technical terms. The Baul body-discipline shares its grammar with a wider South Asian inheritance of breath-work and subtle-body physiology — the same inheritance that runs through Hatha Yoga and the Nath yogis, the lineage of Gorakhnath, with their conservation and transmutation of the body’s substances. Scholars who have worked through the Baul-Fakiri songs find them encoding disciplines cognate with those of the medieval Buddhist, Kaula, and Nath tantric literatures — the same family of techniques, in a Bengali rural key.

The third is the Sufi-fakir culture of the Bengal countryside. From rural Sufism — the world of the Bengali Sufi-fakir and the wandering, property-less fakir — come the figure of the mendicant who owns nothing and the vocabulary of the heart as the organ of knowing. Many Bauls are Muslim by birth; the term fakir attaches as readily to a Baul as to any dervish, and the Muslim sub-stream is sometimes distinguished by that name. Here too the inner beloved can be called Allah or Ahad, “the One,” with no sense of contradiction.

And then the central refusal: that the line between Hindu and Muslim is beside the point. Many Bauls are nominally Hindu, many nominally Muslim, and the tradition treats the question as a distraction from the only thing that matters, which is the work done in the body. The inner divine is named Krishna and Allah and the Uncatchable Man in the same breath and by the same singer. This is not the doctrinal synthesis of a bhakti reformer arguing for one God beneath two creeds; it is something more like indifference to the question — a refusal to let the categories of the settled religions stand at the threshold of the body. Where a philosopher of difference-in-identity such as Nimbarka works the relation of soul and God through the formal category of bhedabheda, the Baul leaves the metaphysics unwritten and stakes everything on a discipline that can only be transmitted, never argued.

The Man of the Heart

The organizing image of the whole tradition is the moner manush — the “Man of the Heart,” the “Man of my Heart”: a formless inner divine, an inner beloved or true self, sought within. He goes by many names — the Uncatchable Man, the Unknown Man, the sahaj manush of the natural state, and, reflecting the tradition’s free eclecticism, Allah, the One, and Krishna. He is sometimes spoken of as already present and merely hidden, a presence one has somehow mislaid inside one’s own frame; the search is less an ascent to a distant God than a recovery of what was always indwelling. He is approached not by ritual, not by argument, not by the intellect, but by a subjective realization through love — the lover’s labor turned upon an inner beloved.

This realization is held to be secret, and transmitted only from a teacher to a student. The Baul is bound to a guru and receives initiation; lineage and authority run not through institutions or texts but through this guru-disciple succession and the living handing-down of songs. The songs themselves say less than the practice intends. Much of what is meant is deliberately veiled, sung in sandhya-bhasa — “twilight language,” “intentional language” — in which ordinary words carry a second sense legible only to the initiated. A moon is not a moon; a river, a bird, a cage, a city, a boat are at once themselves and the names of bodily parts, fluids, breath-states, and stages of the discipline. The coding is at once protective, shielding the inner work from the uninitiated and from the guardians of scripture, and pedagogical: a song means what the singer is ready to hear it mean, and no more. This makes the corpus structurally resistant to literal reading. A surface — a lyric of love and longing, plainly humane and universal — and a depth — an esoteric body-discipline — coexist in the same line, and outsiders have repeatedly mistaken the surface for the whole.

The deepest layer of that discipline is documented, in name, by the scholarship, and the scholarship is careful about what it documents. The chari-chandra — the “four moons” — names a teaching concerning the ritual use and transmutation of four bodily substances; yugala-sadhana names a discipline undertaken by a man and a woman together, in which conventional gender is to be transcended, the male practitioner cultivating a nari bhab, a “female disposition.” These are real and named in the secondary literature, continuous with the tantric and Nath physiology that underlies them. They are not a thing one learns from a description, and none is offered here: the inner architecture of the practice is the point, not its procedure, and the tradition itself holds that the procedure cannot be carried by writing at all. Baul renunciation is, by South Asian standards, strange — its hallmark is not celibacy and solitude but ritual couple-practice, and its renouncers often keep family and village ties. Practitioners run a whole spectrum, from settled householders to those who take the renouncer’s cloth and the road.

Lalon

The best-known composer in the tradition, by a long distance, is Lalon — Lalan Fakir, Lalan Shah, Lalan Sai — conventionally dated about 1774 to 1890, of Cheuriya near Kushtia in what is now Bangladesh. Later Bauls treat him as a guru and his songs as the fountainhead of the repertoire; he is, with that, the tradition’s central controversy. His biography is almost entirely legend. The dominant story has him struck with smallpox on a pilgrimage, abandoned by his companions, and nursed back by a Muslim weaver’s household before he became the disciple of a fakir named Siraj Sai. He recorded essentially nothing of his own origins — by every account, on purpose, to refuse caste and communal classification altogether. So the question of whether he was born Hindu or Muslim is genuinely unsettled, was already contested in his lifetime, and is still actively claimed by rival camps; even his birth year and birthplace differ across the sources, and his age at death is given as 116 or 118. The single contemporaneous likeness is a pencil sketch made by Jyotirindranath Tagore in 1889, aboard a houseboat on the Padma. The honest posture toward his origin is the one he took himself: both and neither.

The corpus that descends from him is oral, and the transcription problem is structural, not incidental. Lalon composed and sang; he left no authoritative written text. His songs were taken down only later, often by semi-literate disciples, and they are coded in twilight language throughout. So even the size of the body of work is disputed. Some Bauls put the number of his songs in the thousands — figures of two thousand and even ten thousand circulate among tradition-bearers — while the most authoritative scholarly reckoning treats only a few hundred enigmatic songs as securely his. Carol Salomon’s standard critical edition, the work of more than three decades, presents her renderings of one hundred thirty-seven Baul songs by Lalan, and even that figure rests on a painstaking reconstruction: she had to build the best possible Bengali “original” of each song out of corrupted manuscripts and balance it against versions still held in living memory. There is no complete public-domain English translation of his work. The reason there is none is the reason the tradition is what it is.

Tagore, and the long correction

The Bauls were lifted to wider attention by Rabindranath Tagore, whose family held the landed estate at Kushtia and Shilaidaha where he first heard Baul singers as a young estate manager. He admired their songs, collected them, published Lalon and Baul material in the Calcutta monthly Prabasi, acquired a manuscript of Lalon songs now exhibited at Santiniketan, and acknowledged the mark of Baul song on his own work. The postal-runner-poet Gagan Harkara’s song asking where one might find the Man of the Heart was among those that moved him, and supplied the tune that became Bangladesh’s national anthem. Tagore made the Baul an emblem of his own “religion of man” — folding the moner manush into his philosophy of an indwelling divine — and in his Hibbert Lectures, published as The Religion of Man in 1931, he gave the Baul singers of Bengal an appendix of their own. Through him, and through the wider Bengali literary milieu that followed his lead, the Baul became for a global readership an emblem of an unforced, anti-institutional, generously humane spirituality.

That image is partly Tagore’s construction, and the recognition of this is the long correction the scholarship has been making ever since. By foregrounding the lyrical universalism of the songs and the figure of the Man of the Heart, while passing in near-silence over the body-practices that the twilight language both conceals and transmits, Tagore and his readers produced a sanitized Baul — a gentle interfaith troubadour — that has lodged even inside scholarship. The recovery has come from a line of close students of the corpus: Edward Dimock on the Vaishnava-Sahajiya substrate, June McDaniel on Bengal’s ecstatic religion, Jeanne Openshaw on the lived world of Baul practitioners, Carol Salomon on Lalan’s songs themselves. They have restored the demanding esoteric and tantric content beneath the lyrical surface, and resisted, in both directions, the two distortions that pull at the tradition. One softens the Bauls into mere folk poets and erases the discipline. The other does the opposite and collapses the whole into a sensational “tantric sex.” The Bauls are neither one nor the other, and the songs are both a humanist ethic and an esoteric body-discipline at once; either pole alone is a falsification. The more recent ethnography presses a further caution — that even the tidy category “the Baul” is partly a modern, outsider’s reification of something the singers themselves keep deliberately fluid, oral, and anti-systematic.

The textual life and its scholarship

The Baul corpus came into print late and through intermediaries, and its documentary record is, by the nature of the tradition, a record of mediation as much as of preservation. The earliest widely available European-language window is Tagore’s own — the essay “An Indian Folk Religion” in Creative Unity (1922), where his renderings of Baul material first reached an international audience, carrying his humanist refraction with them. The modern critical recovery runs through a small shelf of standard works. Edward C. Dimock Jr.’s The Place of the Hidden Moon (University of Chicago Press, 1966) opened the Vaishnava-Sahajiya cult — the “mad Baul singers,” the doctrines of tantra, the worship of Krishna — to serious study. June McDaniel’s The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal (University of Chicago Press, 1989) set the Bauls within Bengal’s larger world of religious ecstasy. Jeanne Openshaw’s Seeking Bauls of Bengal (Cambridge University Press, 2002) is the ethnographic study that pressed hardest against the inherited romanticization, reconstructing from fieldwork and manuscript a world in which the human body and human love are primary. The philological capstone is Carol Salomon’s posthumous City of Mirrors: Songs of Lalan Sai (Oxford University Press, 2017), edited by Keith E. Cantu and Saymon Zakaria, with a foreword by Richard Salomon and an introduction by Openshaw — the most authoritative text, translation, and commentary on Lalan’s songs in any language. The principal Bengali anthology, Upendranath Bhattacharya’s Banglar Baul o Baul Gan (1957), remains the standard collection on its own side of the language line. Across all of it, one fact holds: no full, stable, freely available text of the songs exists, because the foundational layer was never authored as a fixed text in the first place.

In 2005 the songs of the Bauls were proclaimed by UNESCO among the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, and in 2008 the element was incorporated into the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity — a recognition of a tradition still living, still sung village to village to the drone of the one-stringed ektara, the two-stringed dotara, and a small drum, still gathering at the shrine at Cheuriya for the great seasonal song-fairs.

The resemblance to other traditions of mystic song — the verses of Kabir, the wider world of the wandering sant of north India, the Sufi orders’ own poetics — is real and often noted; the Bauls share that family’s distrust of priests and books and its preference for the sung word over the written. Comparanda reach further still, to other body-centered inner paths carried in poem and lineage rather than in scripture — the Tamil Shaiva-Siddhar verse of the Tirumantiram, the disciplined inwardness of a Sufi order such as the Naqshbandiyya-Khalidiyya; the Bauls take the vocabulary of each and settle in none. Their songs are still carried village to village to the drone of the ektara at the song-fairs of Kushtia and Birbhum, and the discipline beneath them was never written as a book: it passes from a living teacher to the one who comes to ask, as it always has.

→ In the library: Tagore & Underhill — Songs of Kabir (1915)

→ Related: Bhakti Movement · Bhedabheda · Gnosis · Sahajiya · Gaudiya Vaishnavism · Sufism · Sufi Fakir Bengali · Fakir · Hatha Yoga · Guru · Rabindranath Tagore · Nimbarka · Tirumantiram Tamil Siddhar Tradition · Naqshbandiyya Khalidiyya