Info on satyavacana

[George Thompson]

In a message dated 6/30/00 7:30:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU writes:

> As so often people hit on the same solution (Lueders!) at the same time: so
>  far missing, thus:
>
>  Brown, N. W. 1940. The basis for the Hindu Act of Truth, Review of
>  Religions 5, 36-45.
>
>  _____. 1941. The Hindu Act of Truth, Religious Digest 12.64, 23-25
>
>  _____. 1963: Rg Veda 10.34 as an Act of Truth, Bharatiya Vidya 20-21, 8-10.
>
>  _____. 1968. The Metaphysics of the Truth Act (*Satyakriya), Melanges
>  d'Indianisme a la memoire de L. Renou, Paris 171-177.
>
>
>  Some of this  reprinted in:
>  _____. 1978. India and Indology. Delhi.
>

Well, I agree with the general point here.  Both Lueders and Brown recognized
that the satyakriyA, though itself a term unattested in Vedic, was a concept
and a practice that was well-known in Vedic.  But I also think that there is
an important difference between them.

In the article cited by Carlos Lopez I argued that the view of Lueders is
that the satyakriyA is magical, whereas the view of Brown is that it is
ethical.  Furthermore, I argued that the view of Lueders is more accurate
than Brown's, who I think was susceptible to a certain amount of
anachronistic interpretation of Vedic texts in this context.

For example, I do not think that RV 10.34, the famous hymn of the gambler,
represents a satyakriyA at all [pace Brown].  No, in my view the speech act
which we encounter in this hymn is an oath, not a satyakriyA, which in my
view is a 'magical performative.'

Well, in general, the point of my article was to suggest that it would be
good to carefully consider the difference between various speech-acts
encountered in Vedic,  such as oaths. vows, curses, confessions, ordeals, or
boasts -- and satyakriyAs.  In order to encourage such careful
discriminations I resorted to speech-act theory.

In any case, I have found the position of Lueders much stronger than that of
Brown.

Best wishes,

George Thompson