"indigenous categories"

[thompson at handel.jlc.net]

I'd like to comment on J. Houben's recent remarks re "indigenous categories":

>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.
>
Houben's point is well taken: a "world-view" is not likely to be a
homogeneous thing, manifesting itself everywhere and always in the same
way.  Generalizations about it must be made cautiously, with an eye to
contradictions, oppositions, and inconsistencies.  A theory of speech acts
would also require that we attend to the *function* of any given text, and
to refrain from assuming that a given text is merely making a truth claim,
and nothing else.  Here I think that Jakobson's treatment of the functions
of language is relevant, since it enables us to view any given utterance as
having more than one function, each operating at the same time [e.g., when
the Vedic poet says "I now proclaim the noble deeds of Indra", I discern
*at least* three functions...phatic, assertive, declarative]. Houben has
made roughly this same point, I think, in his reference to Kelly.

As for the passages cited above, and the apparent inconsistency between the
RSi's belief in the efficacy of his ritual and the philosopher's apparent
skepticism, I think the following anecdote might be relevant.  These are
the words of a ritual specialist from Senegal [recorded by Pierre Smith]:

"When we announce to the future initiates that the masks are going to cut
off their heads, they should act as if they believe it.  If one of them
acts skeptical or put out, it is very serious and he must be severely
punished.  But if one of them believes too strongly and gets upset, tries
to run away or loses control, it is even more serious.  This is the sign
that he will never be able to live among us as a man, and in the old days
they preferred to kill him and be done with it."

["Aspects of the Organization of Rites" in 'Between Belief & Transgression:
Structuralist Essays in Religion, History & Myth', [eds. M. Izard & P.
Smith] Univ. Chicago Pr. 1982]

When I first encountered this anecdote more than a dozen years ago, I was
immediately struck by its significance, and I always cite it in a course on
ritual studies which I teach every year.  I wonder whether Mssrs. Houben
and Goehler, or anyone else, would agree that it may have a certain
relevance to Vedic studies, or to the present matter of this thread.

Sincerely,
George Thompson