overemphasis on magic

[JHOUBEN at rullet.LeidenUniv.nl]

Reacting briefly to F. Smith's earlier remark (1st of June)

>>Alas, the 
>>same can be said for the way terms like indrajaala and yaatu were used
>>in Skt texts and their counterparts in modern languages, e.g. jaaduu in 
>>Hindi, etc. So, it turns out that these may actually be "indigenous 
>>categories" that cannot be so easily abandoned by exorcising our own 
>>orientalism and essentialism.

and to G. Thompson's recent reference to this (+ ref. to use of term "magic" by 
Thieme): 

According to one "indigenous" perception the sun will not rise if a Rsi does 
not perform his SAndhya (this was, when I am not mistaken, the claim of 
JaratkAru (m), note the context: when he wanted to get rid of his wife 
JaratkAru (f), see MahAbhArata). 
Another "indigenous" perception is as follows: 
vyAghrAdivyapadezena yathA bAlo nivartyate | 
asatyo 'pi tathA kaz cit pratyavAyo 'bhidhIyate ||
"Just as a child is kept away from something by telling it stories about tigers 
etc., like that [sacred texts] speak of some bad consequence even though it is 
not real" (Bhartrhari, VAkyapadIya 2.321). 

Which "indigenous" perception, and which presupposed categories should we take 
as our standard for scholarly interpretations of Vedic and Hindu ritual? 
The cited statement of the grammarian-philosopher Bhartrhari is of course not 
as sceptical as it may look at first sight. It is in full agreement with the 
classical MImAMsaka-attitude according to which ArthavAdas merely reinforce the 
Vidhi, without strong independent truth-claim. 

Recently, Elizarenkova's book Language and Style of the Vedic Rsis became 
available to me. I found the following definition of "magic-mentality, almost 
inseparable from religion at a certain stage of society's development" (p. 13): 
"The difference between them [i.e. magic-mentality and religion] could be 
briefly outlined as follows: while the religious outlook can be characterized 
by obedience to Divine Will, the magic mentality replaces the deity with 
abstract entities which can be manipulated with the help of magical techniques. 
The fundamental principle of any magic is total determinism without causal 
connections. The world structure is represented as a system of equivalences: 
everything can be caused by anything." 
Elizarenkova refers here to Stanislav Schayer's study Die Weltanschauung der 
BrAhmaNa-texte and to her own study of the Atharva Veda. 

Are Elizarenkova's catogories and her evolotionary presuppositions a good basis 
for the discussion of Vedic ritualism? Perhaps they are, I am just beginning 
with her book. But perhaps they are the "indigenous categories" of the Judaio-
Christian tradition (partly parallel to other "indigenous categories)? In any 
case, the view sketched by her is precisely the one extensively criticized by 
Tambiah c.s. 

Jan E.M. Houben
Research fellow International Institute for Asian Studies
P.O. Box 9515
2300 RA  Leiden
jhouben at RULLET.LeidenUniv.NL