Book Department ~T Possession in the Nepal Himalayas, Edited by John T
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
book department ~t possession in the Nepal Himalayas, edited by John T. Hitch cock and Rex L. Jones, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 1976, 384 pages, 21 photographs, map, and bibliography. Price: I.e. Rs. 95/-. In the vo1umunous literature dealing with spirit possession and shamanism throughout the world, much attention has been f ocused on the Siberian region as the locus classicus of "true shamanism" Regardless of the historical and methodological validity of this claim, largely imposed on the academic world by Mircea Eliade (1964), a strong case could certainly be made f or considering Nep al as the most fruitful location for studies of' spir i t pos ses-· sion and shamanism at the present time. As amply demonstrat ed by this eagerly awaited anthology, Nepal can boast of a wealth of cul tural traditions ass ociated with spirit possession which would be difficult, if not impossible, to find in any one region elsewhere. The editors are therefore to be commended i n bringing together this collection of articles on spirit possession in Nepal in one volume . Spirit Possession in Nepal is composed of 19 articles written by anthropologists who have conducted field work in Nep al, together with an introduction by John Hitchcock, the doyen of anthropologists who have worked on Nepali spirit possession. Six of the author s are concerned with spirit possession among ethnic groups in Easter n Nepal (S. Korz Jones, R.L. Jones, and P. Sagant among the Limbu ; A. Fournier among the Sunuwar; N. A11en among the Thu1ung Rai; and R. Paul among the Sherpa); and another six authors write on spirit possession among communities in Western Nepal (W. Michel among the Chantel; Hitchcock among the people of the Bhuji Khola; D. Messer schmidt among the Gurung; M. Gaborieau and W. Wink1er among the Hindu populations of the Karna1i and Mahaka1i Zones respectively; and J. Reinhard among the Raji). These geographically based sets of articles form Parts I and 11. Part III is composed of one article of notes on different areas of Nepal (by C. Jest), and one on jhankris (a widely used Nepali term for "shaman") in general, based on field work conducted in Darjeeling (by A.W. Macdona1d). In contrast, Part IV consists of three articles on spirit posses sion and literary traditions. Two of these treat spirit possession in a more symbolic sense: one on the reincarnate lama (by B. Aziz), and the other on the Tibetan Mahaka1a ritual observed in Kathmandu (by W. Stabe1ein). The third article presents a translation of sections of the 1853 Nepalese code (Mu1iki Ain) concerning sorcery and shamanism (by A.W. Macdona1d). In addition to these four parts there are two articles set at the beginning of the volume dealing with questions of categorization and function (R. Jones) and defi nition (J. Reinhard). As indicated by this brief tabulation of contents, the primary value of this volume is in its presentation of ethnographic infor mation regarding spirit possession complexes among ethnic groups distributed over much of Nepal. While the mode and usefulness of 120 INAS Journal each presentat ion necessarily varies with the author, by in large. most authors demonstr ate a good grasp of the conceptual contexts, ritual details, and sociologi cal settings which make up the spirit possession complex wi·thin their area. Equally importantly. most of them present case histories of individual shamans, thereby ing possibl e individual variation and making the abstr act data more concr e te and immediate. This is an excellent achievement. From the ethnographic point of view, however , there a1 1ucunae in t he anthology. While the Editors admit in Introduction to "an unavoidable failure" due to economic constr " t o make the volume fully international and representat ive of all scholars who had material, published or un-published"; they fail to mention the question of ethnographic r epresentation. Several of t he e thnic gr oups are composed of extremely small popu1ations ( i.e. the Chante1, the Raji, the Sunuwar). Clearly, an a1 l iterature is the one place where small populations deserve equal representation; but just as clearly, a volume which is enti tled Spirit Possession in the Nepal Himalayas should also note the absence of articles on the more populous communities in Nepal such as the Brahman-Chhetri and Tamang of Central and Eastern Nepal. 1 Another unfortunate ethnographic ommission is the lack of a comparative article spelling out the common cultural features of spirit possession within the larger Nepa1i context. That such a national cultural context exists is overwhelmingly apparent from r eading these articles. There are differences of substance and detail between many of the spirit possession complexes presented in this anthology and these differences are essential to the standing of the meaning and function of these complexes in each society. Nevertheless a significant number of shared beliefs and patterns of behaviour is also clearly evident in all the articles which deal with non-literate spirit possession in Nepal. These shared conceptions, some of which are obliquely mentioned by R. Jones, include beliefs regarding: a) the supernatural agents of illness and misfortune (i.e. spirits of those who have died un naturally, witches , deities, the planets (graha)" b) the human causes of such illness and misfortune (i.e. neglect or offense of of gods and spirits, envy, and malice); c) the means of dealing with such problems (Le. divinati'on with rice or in trance, prop tiation of the offending agent by offerings and sacrifices, d ing by scapegoat); as well as, d) patterns of the shamanic prof sion (i.e. necessity for purity, initial possession experience. relationship to society, the possessing agent, and economic tions). It is this shared Nepa1i culture which begins to explain an other important feature of spirit possession in Nepal which, mentioned by individual authors in the anthology for their own gions, is never brought to light in the context of the whole of Book Review 121 al This feature is its lack of caste or ethnic exc1usivisity. ~ile'certain rituals and functions are confined" to particular mmunities, all of the authors report at least indirectly on the ~Oter-communit y nature of spirit possession. In fact, ironically nOUgh , many of the shamans described within the context of a parti e~lar ethnic group turn out to be from different ethnic groups: or Cart of a multi-ethnic complex: Hitchcock describes Bhujel shaman ism among Matwala Khas and Kamis; Michl describes Chante1 shamanism among Kamis; Reinhard traces Raji shamanism to the Tharu origins; R. Jones describes a Brahman shaman using a Limbu god; Paul reports that Sherpas mostly use non-Sherpa shamans, etc. Most authors re cord shamans from one community taking a guru from another; and many mention that people from one community utilize shamans from another, including shamans from untouchable occupational castes. Treatment of this convincing testimony to a wider inter-ethnic culture within which people from different communities turn to each other for solutions to some of the most intimate and important problems in their lives would have been a valuable addition to a volume such as this which deals with the whole of Nepal. Turning from the ethnographic value of the volume to its theo retical contribution requires that the reader focus on the work of I.M. Lewis (1971) and Mircea Eliade (1964). Not-only do these two scholars form the primary focal point of R. Jones' and Reinhard's theoretical articles respectively, but, by in large, they represent the only theoretical works which are consistently mentioned in the individual articles. R. Jones, in his introductory article entitled :'Spirit Posses sion and Society in Nepal" is primarily concerned with two tasks: a) to refine Lewis' classification of categories of spirit posses sion, and b) to functionally relate the new classifications he develops to the situation in Nepal. In accomplishing the former task, Jones starts from the position that while there is consider able merit in Lewis' category of "peripheral possession" to des cribe individual cases of uncontrolled possession (such as posses sion by a bhut or other evil spirit), he finds Lewis second "catch all" category of "central possession" inadequate. Utilizing the dimensions of designated/undesignated time and space, as different iating criteria, Jones constructs an alternative classification system in which "peripheral possession" is retained, but "central possession" is subdivided into three categories of "tutelary pos session," in which the shaman has a tutelary deity, "oracular possession" in which the shaman is a medium, and "reincarnate pos session" (defined below). Thus, while "peripheral possession" is undesignated according to either time or space, "oracular posses sion" is designated according to both, and the other two categories fill the remaining two slots. ' 122 INAS Journal This classification is clearly more useful than that propound_ ed by Lewis. Its primary value lies in distinguishing between "peripheral", "tutelary" and "oracular" kinds of possession. How ever, the category of "reincarnate possession" appears somewhat anomalous. While Aziz has demonstrated that the concept of spirit possession can serve as a heuristic paradigm for understanding re incarnate lamas (tulkus), questions remain as to its comparability with other forms of spirit possession. One is thus tempted to speculate that Jones included it in part because of the presence of