Abstract
The conferral of immense symbolic importance on so-called 'Bāuls' by educated, urban Bengalis from the end of the 19th century derives from and has contributed to various kinds of essentialisation of the category 'bāul'. Assumptions of uniformity and continuity have resulted in a scholarly over-emphasis on the role of the institutional guru. It is argued here that the authority of this guru is far from absolute, even in theory. It is undermined by the plurality of gurus, the option of internalising or universalising the notion of the guru, and the crucial role of self-cultivation on the part of disciples. Moreover, esoteric practice necessitates a male-female pair, and the theoretical and practical importance conferred on women by 'Bāuls' tends to subvert the predominantly male guru lineages ('Hindu', Muslim or mixed), as does a readiness to divinise human beings as such, rather than only perfected human beings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.