staal_the sound of religion i_numen 33 (1986)

8/13/2019 Staal_The Sound of Religion I_Numen 33 (1986)

1/33

The Sound of Religion

Author(s): Frits StaalSource: Numen, Vol. 33, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1986), pp. 33-64Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270126.

Accessed: 01/12/2013 06:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILLis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.58.253.30 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 06:22:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3270126?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3270126?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/33

Numen,Vol.XXXIII, Fasc. 1

THE SOUND OF RELIGIONFRITS STAAL

IMethodologyfthe cience fRitual

This paper* discusses concepts and methodologythat are re-quired for heanalysisofa ritualsong. In thepast, ritualsongshavebeen analysed by scholars of religion (e.g., van der Leeuw onBach's HoheMesse)and by anthropologistse.g., Raymond Firth nTikopia). In as far as I can see, neithertypeof analysis has beensuccessful;theyhave neitherexplained basic questions (e.g., whyare such songs sung?) nor thrownany lighton specificdetails. Ifound that differentonceptsand methods have to be used in orderto reach more satisfactory nd promisingresults. These conceptsand methods are familiar n other domains of inquiry, are fairlyclear and intelligible, nd willundoubtedlybe adopted by scholarsofreligion,anthropologists, nd others,soneror later. In thepagesthat follow shall tryto show that theirtimehas come.At the outset,my approach to the studyof ritualmay appear tobe closer to anthropological approaches than to those that havebeen adopted by scholars of religion; but it is different rombehavioristic, functionalistand structuralist nthropologies andfrom he"symbolic anthropology"that s inspiredbyhermeneuticsand that s now America's favorite. ince thisarea ofresearchtendsto get entangled in conceptual confusions, shall startwith someremarks on methodology, specifically on the methodology ofscience.Few anthropologistsnd veryfew tudents freligionhave recog-nized the relevanceofthemethodology f science for heconceptualclarifications that are so badly needed. An exception is MiltonSinger, and his analysiswillprovideus witha good pointofdepar-ture. The methodologyof science is generallyregardedas a shadydiscipline,on a par withall thoseapparentlyendless discussionson

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/33

34 FritsStaalmethod, theory nd foundationsthat are so often-and withgoodreason-frowned upon by fieldworkers, and further suspectbecause of itsoriginal linkswithpositivism,forthisdisciplinewasbroughtto Chicago by philosopherswho had been closely relatedto the Vienna Circle. Rudolf Carnap, for example, came fromVienna and Prague toChicago, where he taughtfrom1935 till1952and where he edited, togetherwithOtto Neurath and Charles W.Morris, the Internationalncyclopediaf Unified cience.At Chicago,semantics was accordinglydiscussed and developed a quarterof acenturybeforetheemergenceof whatEdmund Leach has called the"Chicago dogma," namely, that "cultures are systems fsymbolsand meanings" (Leach 1985, 156). Singer's methodology fscienceis not the same as thatoftheChicago philosopherswithwhom hestudied, nor is it of the same varietyas the one to which I myselfwas exposed by my teacher Evert Beth in Amsterdam; but thesimilarities re sufficient orme to feelat home when I am readingor listening to him. Moreover, they remind me not only ofAmsterdambut also ofMadras-the city n whichboth Singer andI did fieldwork albeit of a different ype) and where we bothderived benefitfromthe guidance and vast eruditionof the sameIndian scholar, the late ProfessorV. Raghavan.The XVth InternationalCongress of the International Associa-tionfor heHistoryofReligions (IAHR) takes me back to the sametwo cities. The IAHR was founded when a series of internationalcongressesforthehistory freligions,which had been interruptedby the Second World War, was resumed in 1950 at Amsterdam.The 1950 congress was devoted primarilyto a discussion of the"mythical-ritualpattern n civilization" (cf. Bleeker, Drewes andHidding 1951). It was there that, as a young student ofmathematics nd logic, I remainedunimpressedbymostof the self-styledphenomologists (e.g., Mircea Eliade, E. O. James, KarlKereflyi,H. W. Schneider) but was inspired by Gerardus van derLeeuw (then Congress President), A. D. Nock, Raffaele Pettaz-zoni, T. M. P. Mahadevan (whom I laterfollowed oMadras), andespecially Henri-Charles Puech and Louis Massignon.

Subsequent decades witnessed the gradual replacementof thatgalaxy of scholars ofreligionbymethodologists f a kind differentfrom heVienna orChicago variety,who emergednot fromdepart-



4/33

The SoundofReligion 35mentsofscience,philosophy,philology,history rOriental studies,but fromdepartmentsof religionoftenaffiliatedwithreligious n-stitutions. n place of the search forobjective truthand the con-comitant emphasis on methodology, a strong sound of religionitself,with its stock-in-tradeof persuasions and organizations,began topervade and even drownout the science ofreligion an ap-pellation I shall continue to use optimistically nd as a rough ap-proximation of the German Religionswissenschaftr the Frenchscienceseligieuses).his developmentwenteasilyhand in hand witha pseudo-methodology inspired by continental philosophy, thatdenied to the studyof religionthe statusof a science on the basisof thebelief thatreligioncannot be studiedobjectively-which im-plies that it cannot by studied at all. And so I decided to addressmyself owhat I regardas thereal ound ofreligion,thesound thatconstitutes ne of theobjectsfthescienceofreligion,the sound onehears in the call of clarionsand gongs,chants,recitations nd ritualsongs. This sound is akin to themusic ofthe spheresabout whichPorphyry aid that it cannot be heard by those whose minds aresmall (LifeofPythagoras,hapter 30). But is also requires a theoryand an adequate methodologyfor tsanalysis,and sincethe scienceof religionhas provided neither, t becomes relevant to turnoncemore to anthropology nd to Milton Singer.Singer distinguishesbetween semiologynd semiotics, isciplineswhich he associates withthe inguistFerdinandde Saussure and thephilosopherCharles Peirce, respectively. have not been able tomake much use of these two disciplines insofar as I understandthem,but I do pay attention o what I shall refer o by thegeneralterm emantics, science ofmeaning (includingsense and reference)traditionally tudied and developed by logicans such as Aristotle,Frege, G6del and Tarski. Singer also uses thedistinctionbetweensyntaxnd semantics;r rather,he splits semiotics nto three com-ponents: "syntactics," "semantics," and "pragmatics." In theabove-mentionedreview,Leach statesthathe regardsthissplit ntothree components as "unhelpful to say the least" (1985, 155).Perhaps this s partlyor mainlydue to theaddition ofpragmatics,a component thatplays an importantpart in semiotics,especiallyas Singerhas described t 1984, 5-6, 48-52). I shall therefore eginwitha few remarkson pragmatics,for lthoughthis fieldofstudies



5/33

36 FritsStaalhas never turned nto a broadly recognizeddiscipline, it addressesreal problems: in particular,how to determine the truthvalue ofsentences that contain "indexical terms," "egocentric par-ticulars," or "token-reflexives" in thewords of Peirce, BertrandRussell, and Hans Reichenbach, respectively)such as "you,""here," or "yesterday." Carnap initiallyconsidered pragmaticsan empirical fieldof investigation Carnap 1936-1937) but subse-quently dealt with its theoretical foundations (Carnap 1947),followingwhich the fieldwas developed as a formal ystemby logi-cians such as H. Kamp, D. Lewis, R. M. Martin, D. Scott, R.Stalnaker and especiallyRichard Montague (1968, 1970: reprintedin Thomason 1974). I myselfrelatedpragmaticstoJ. L. Austin's"performatives" and attempteda linguistic analysis of one of itscharacteristicfeatures Staal 1970a).Pragmatic notionswere current n classical antiquityas well asin ancient India; theyare undoubtedlyhere to stay. At the sametime, the status of pragmatics as a science has so far remainedundetermined;in fact, t may be argued that,outside the domainof formal ogic, pragmaticsdied in Jerusalem (Staal 1971). Whatmaybe true ofpragmatics,however,is certainlynot true ofsyntaxand semantics. These two disciplines representbasically differentapproaches in mathematics, ogic and linguistics.We shall see thatthedistinctionbetween syntaxand semantics s as fundamentaltothe analysis of ritualsong as it is to the analysisoflanguage; fromwhich it does not follow,however,that ritualsongs are anguage-and I shall indeed argue that theyare not.The distinction between syntax and semantics may seem soelementaryas to require no further xplanation. Yet, given thatmost scholarsof religionsimply gnore it and that a respectedan-thropologistsuch as Sir Edmund Leach appears to regard it asunhelpful, t least to anthropology, tmaynotbe superfluous o saya few words about it (for a fullerexplanation see Staal 1984a,19 ff.). Following Morris and Montague, we may distinguishsyntax nd semanticsbycontrasting heirprimary oncerns: syntaxis concerned with relationsbetween (logical or linguistic)expres-sions, and semanticswith the relationsbetween such expressionsand theirmeanings. (Pragmatics is concernedwiththerelationsbe-tween expressions, theirmeanings, and their users or contexts ofuse).



6/33

TheSoundofReligion 37Let us consider a general symbolic expression,forexample:

ABCBA. (1)Ifwe analyze this n semanticerms,we interprett as meaning some-thing or referring o something, e.g., numbers ("3 8 7 8 3"),words ("found sleepyon sleepyfound"), tones ("b flat, a, d, a, bflat"), movements threesteps up a staircase and then down again),etc. If we analyze the same expression in syntacticerms, on theotherhand, we disregardmeanings and interpretations,nd studyonly the configurationsof the letter symbols. For example, weregard (1) as consistingof fiveunits, formingpart of:

MNABCBAMN (2)or of:

MNABCBANM (3)or as mirror mage of itself, tc.The distinction between syntactic and semantic methods ofanalysis is basic to all systems hat are formal or thatuse symbolsin a systematic fashion; i.e., chiefly to mathematics and themathematicalsciences,but also to logic and linguistics.Linguisticsis also concernedwiththeproperties f thesymbols hemselves; ndas these are primarily ounds, it needs phonologyn additionto syn-tax and semantics. Whetherlinguisticsalso stands in need of an-otherdisciplinethatdeals withpragmaticotions s open toquestion,as we have already seen; the statusofpragmaticsas a disciplineisthereforenot on a par withphonology, syntaxand semantics.Ifit s truethatsyntax nd semantics re requiredfor heanalysisof ritual songs that have so far been primarilystudied in an-thropology nd thescience ofreligion,thegeneralquestionnatural-ly arises whether subdisciplines of logic and linguistics such asphonology, syntax, semantics and, perhaps, pragmatics haveanything o offer hesetwo sciences. For anthropology, he answeris clear: it has been repeatedly inspired by developments inlinguistics, nd thesewaves ofinspirationhave flowedalong chan-nels cut by at least some ofthesesubdisciplines.Thus L6vi-Strausshas been inspiredbythephonologyofJakobson,SingerbyPeirce'ssemantics (a term I shall continue to use in a general sense, and



7/33

38 FritsStaalwithoutmaking the distinctionbetween semioticsand semiology)and Stanley Tambiah by the pragmaticsof Austin and others inhis performativenalysisofritual: Tambiah 1979). Oddly enough,what alone appears to be missing n this ist ofexamples is syntax-the most basic of these disciplines, at least according to mostlinguists, ogicians and mathematicians.Syntax is not really lacking in anthropology,but in order todiscern twe must ook moreclosely. In theirfamousarticleof1899entitled"Essai sur la nature et la fonctiondu sacrifice," Hubertand Mauss offereda "scheme abstrait du sacrifice" which isprimarily yntactic n nature: forexample, theymade, forthefirsttime, the elementarybut fundamentalsyntacticobservation thatrites have a beginning,a middle and an end. Their analysis is toa large extentderived from the syntactic nalysis of Vedic ritualfound in the irauta utras, body of Sanskrittextscomposed fromapproximately heeighth o thefifthenturyB.C. Mauss had beenintroduced to these texts by Sylvain Levi who taught during1896-1897 at the Collhge e France,specificallyforMauss (Mauss1969, III, 538) a course on Vedic ritual which was subsequentlyrevisedand publishedin 1898 as "La doctrinedu sacrificedans lesBrihmanas." Hubert and Mauss also referred n their article topublished sources based upon the Vedic srautasitras, such asSchwab's 1886 monograph on the Vedic animal sacrificeentitled"Das altindischeThieropfer." Durkheim (1915, 386) concludedfromHubert and Mauss, as well as from other anthropologicaldata, that a rite can servedifferentnds; but he did not draw thefurther onclusion thatritual is therefore o some extent ndepen-dent of theends it is supposed to serve.Accordingly,he did notpaymuch attention o syntax,which s a pityfor nthropologycf. Staal1984a, 3-8).Why are we ustified n characterizing heanalysisofVedic ritualgivenin the 'rautautras s syntactic?o providean adequate answerto this question would necessitate a lengthyexcursus into Vedicliterature,but in the presentcontext t should suffice o statethatthesyntacticnalysis of ritual in thefrauta utras upplementsand isto some extentsupplementedby its semanticnterpretationn theBrdhmanas. ustas theBrdhmanastand at thesource of much of n-dian mythology, he syntactic nalysis of the drautautrass closely



8/33

TheSoundofReligion 39relatedto the originsof grammar,thatuniquely Indian contribu-tion that also incorporatedthe phonology and morphologyof theVedic prdtiidkhyaiteratureand that culminated in the SanskritgrammarofPanini. In the presentcontext must refer o what Ihave argued elsewhere, viz., that 1) the ancient Indians possesseda science fritualwhich used primarily yntacticmethods, and that(2) linguistics riginated,at least in India, in close associationwiththis syntactic nalysis of ritual (Staal 1982).European phonologyhas been profoundlynspiredbythe Indiangrammarians, and Jakobson's concept of "distinctive features"stillbears the stamp of their nfluence.The studyof syntax,how-ever, seems to have entered Western linguistics much later,with Zellig Harris and more definitivelywith Noam Chomsky.Thus, ifwe had to picturethe influence xertedby linguistics andby logic and philosophyvia linguistics)on anthropology n tabularform, nd in termsof the foursubdisciplinesto whichwe have re-ferred,we should properly nclude these ancient Indian forerun-ners, as follows:

Linguistics Anthropologyphonology Pratisakhya,anini, akobson Le'vi-Strausssyntax Pa-nini,homsky Srauta-suitras,ubert Mausssemantics Frege, Peirce, Saussure Singerpragmatics Austin, rice TambiahIn most of these relationships, he influencehas been in the direc-tion from linguistics (including logic and philosophy) to an-thropology;the only exception is the ritual science of the drautastitras, hich I have listed in the table under "anthropology" forlack ofa betterheading and which nfluencedPaininiand the otherIndian grammarians Renou 1941-1942, Staal 1982).What, then, s the relation betweenthesevarious disciplinesandthe science of religion?Before we address this question we mustmake several observations.Firstofall, it is not reallyanthropologyas a whole that has undergone the influence of syntax andpragmatics; it is rather the anthropologicalstudyof ritual. In thecase ofphonology,thecase is different,nd theconsequences havebeen baffling: orLevi-Straussintroduced ntoanthropology formofanalysisthat tressedbinaryoppositionsand thatwas based upon



9/33

40 FritsStaaldistinctive features, though all linguists know that distinctivefeatures had been postulated successfully nly in phonology, andhave no place in syntaxor semantics.L6vi-Strauss,in otherwords,introduced ntoanthropology linguisticmethodwhichhe regard-ed as a universal panacea, while in fact t is a technique that hasbeen found applicable only in a subdisciplineof linguistics.Onemighteven go further nd reason that it is a priori nlikelythat amethod thatcan be used in phonologybut not in syntaxor seman-ticscould be useful n anthropology.Moreover,whyshould two uf-fice forman when so many other natural numbers exist and arefound elsewhere in nature? If L6vi-Strausshad studied linguisticslater, or Chomsky developed syntaxearlier, Levi-Strauss, insteadofpayingattention obinary opposition,mighthave introduced hesyntacticmethodsthathad been adumbratedbyHubert and Maussin their study of ritual, but that were not fully developed inlinguisticsuntil Chomsky.Since ritual is one of the main areas ofresearch common to an-thropologyand the science of religion,one mightexpect that thelatter science should have been inspiredby linguisticsor logic aswell. In fact,the scene for uch an influencehad long been set. Asearlyas 1867, Max Milllerpredicted:"It was supposed at one timethat a comparative analysis of the languages of mankind musttranscendthe powers ofman: and yet, by the combined and welldirectedeffortsfmany scholars,greatresultshave been obtained,and the principlesthat must guide the student of the Science ofLanguage are now firmly stablished. It will be the same with theScience of Religion" (in: Waardenburg 1973, I, 86). What hap-pened, in fact, was that the comparative study of religionsdeveloped as Milller had predicted; but when the "Science ofLanguage" made a methodological transitionfromcomparativeand diachronicphilologyto a synchronic cience of inguistics, he"Science ofReligion" lagged behind. Instead ofdeveloping a syn-tactic method of analysis appropriate to its object, it fellprey tophenomology,existentialism,hermeneutics nd otherwarringfac-tions. It was left o anthropologists uch as Mauss to studyreligiousphenomena like ritual in the manner in which de Saussure hadstudied anguage, as a "systime oiC outse tient." Thus the scienceof religionfailed to make the transitionwhichwould have turned



10/33

TheSoundof Religion 41it, like linguistics,from respectablebranch of scholarship nto acontemporary cientific iscipline as well.Belatedly,scholars ofreligionhave expressedan awareness of theneed for uch a transition.For example, in a recent reaction tomyarticle "The Meaninglessness of Ritual" (Staal 1979b), Hans H.Penner states that "the studyof inguistics s thenecessaryfounda-tion for explanations in religion" and that "language as we allknow is composed of signs, and all linguistic signs havephonological, syntactic nd semanticcomponents" (Penner 1985).Yet, in the same article,Penner assertsthatmy syntactic nalysisof ritual s "irrelevant." He supportsthisby emphasizingthat,bymyown admission, thesepieces of analysis "do not correspondtoany existingritual" or "to any actual ritual."Disentangling some ofthemisconceptionsthatare at therootofthese assertions should help us to understandmore preciselytherelationshipsbetween themethodology f science and thescienceofritual-or any mpiricalscience,for hatmatter. t would be correctto say thatanthropologyhas been influencedby linguistics;but thisdoes not mean that specificpieces of linguisticanalysis have beenof greatuse to anthropology.For example, some of L6vi-Strauss'work serves to warn us thatan uncriticalacceptance ofdistinctivefeatures s articifial nd unproductivewithinanthropology. n mystudyof Vedic ritual I found somethingdifferent, iz., that someritual structures an be generatedby rules that are similar to therulesthat inguists all transformations, hileothers re unlikeanystructuresfound in natural languages or withwhich linguistsarefamiliar (Staal 1979a, and b, 1984b). From the methodologicalstandpoint,however, the most basic issue is not whetherritual oranthropological structures re similar to linguisticstructures.Ofimportance s thatall such structures repostulatednd never corre-spond exactlyto actual facts uch as rites.Rather, theycorrespond,iftheyare adequate, to features hatare abstractedrom ctuallyex-istingrites, ust as the aws ofphysicsdo not correspondto specificevents that take place in my garden, but to features bstractedromsuch events.

L6vi-Strauss may have been wrong with regard to the specificbinary oppositions,or other pecific honologicalor syntactic truc-tures, that he postulated; but he is rightwithrespectto method.



11/33


12/33


13/33

44 FritsStaalsenses are different:agnis.tomameans "Praise of Agni" andjyotis.tomameans "Praise of Light." Both refer to the sameceremony,a Soma celebrationwithonepressing day duringwhichthere are twelve chants and recitations: fiveduring the morningpressing, fiveduring the afternoonpressing, and two during thethirdpressing.We shall return n the next section to the eleventhchant, or first hant ofthe thirdpressing. In thepresentcontext tis sufficient o state thatAgnistomaandJyotistoma, ike "morningstar" and "evening star," have different enses but the samereference.2

IIMost delicious nd inebriating

In order to test some of the ideas discussed in the previous sec-tion,we shall now turnto thestudyofa ritualsong. Or rather,weshall be concernedwith family fritualsongsderived from verseof the Rigveda which extols the flow of Soma. These ritual songsbelong to the categoryof ritual sound that in India, since Vedictimes,has been called mantra. mantra s a ritual sound expressionthatmay or may not be derived from n expressionoflanguage-like the verse of the Rigveda in the cases we shall be studying.Whetherthemantras themselves hould be regardedas expressionsof language is a topic that has never been discussed, because it isalways assumed that they are. Mantras and the ritual actsthemselves orrespondto each other. To studya ritualsystem s tostudya systemof mantras, and vice versa.The verse that is our point of departureis the first f the ninthbook, the only book of the Rigveda that deals in its entiretywithSoma and its ritualpurification nd preparation. t is the first erseof a hymn RV 9.1) thatbelongs to a group ofhymnsall writtenin the same meter,called gdyatrz.he textof thisgayatrz-verses:

svidisthaya midisthayapavasva soma dhiraya (4)indraya p~tave sutaih RV 9.1.1).The translation s straightforwardnd uncontroversial:



14/33

TheSoundofReligion 45"With most delicious and inebriatingflow,Soma, purifyyourself,Pressed for ndra to drink."

The gayatrimeterconsistsofthreeoctosyllabicverses, nwhich ong(-) and short u) syllablesare generallydistributed s follows:-u- u- (5)

In the case ofthe above verse, the distribution flongs and shortsis as follows:

S-u,- u-u- (6)--u- u-The accent ""' which has been printedovercertainsyllablesof thetext in (4) is called udatta, raised," and it is possible that it wasoriginallyspokenwith raised pitch (but see Gray 1959a and b fora dissentingview). Whateveritsoriginalpronunciation, t was latermarked by recitingthe previous syllableat a lower pitch, and thefollowing t a higherpitch.A few more rules have to be takenintoaccount beforewe can properlypronounce thisverse, but we shallnottroubleourselveswiththem.The lower accentis called anuddtta,"not raised," and is written n themanuscripts thatare all of aterdate) with a horizontal bar below the syllable; and the higher,svarita, (re)sounding," writtenwitha verticalbar above it. Theresultis as follows:

svadisthayamadisthayaI .. . .. I -pavasva soma dharaya (7)indraya patave sutahThis mode of recitation,which is called svddhydya,nly servesthepurpose of transmission,from teacher to pupil or from fathertoson. Texts are never recitedin thismanner in the ritual itself:tobe fitforritualuse, the traditionalrecitationshave to undergocer-tain modifications. In many cases, verse have to be turned intosongs which are then incorporated in the Veda of Songs, or



15/33

46 FritsStaalSamaveda. In the above case, the first tepofthatprocessof ncor-poration is extremely simple. The uddtta, varita nd anuddtta rechanted at threedifferentitches,each at an intervalof about a sec-ond from ach other,thefirstuddtta) hehighest, he ast (anuddtta)the lowest, and the svarita t an intermediatepitch. The manu-scriptsrefer o these tones with the help of numerals:

"1" for uddtta"2" for svarita (8)"3" for anuddtta.These numerals are written bove the syllables,as follows:12 3 1 2 3svadisthayamadisthaya1 2 3 12pavasva soma dharaya (9)1 2 3 1 2 3 2indraya patave sutah(9) is closerto (4) than it is to (7), which shows thatthe Samavedais earlier and closer to the original Rigveda than the Rigvedasystemofhorizontal and verticalstrokesused in themanuscripts.This is in accordance with the chronologyproposed by Kiparsky(1982, Lecture II) forthedevelopmentoftheVedic accent system,providedwe insert heSamaveda afterheRigveda as it was knownto Panini, but beforehe Rigveda recension with which we arefamiliar.Before we can sing (9), we have to know at which pitch thesyllablesnot marked with a numeral have to be sung. The rule isagain very simple: these are sung at the pitch of the precedingsyllable. The basic chants of the Samaveda, thus providedwithapatternof song that immediatelyderivesfromthe accentuation ofthe original, are listed in the first art of the Samaveda, which isreferred o as Samhita--as in thecase oftheotherVedas-and also,more appropriately,as arcikd, list of verses," fromrk "verse"from which the appellation rgveda,"Veda of Verse," is alsoderived.The next portion of the Samaveda lists the melodies to whichthese verses are sung. It consists of the more commongrdmageyagdna,songs to be sung in the village," and the moreesotericaranzyageyagdnaor aranzyegeyagdna),songs to be sung in the



16/33

The Soundof Religion 47forest." Both these gana-bookscorrespond to the svddhyayaf theother Vedas: they mainly serve the purpose of transmitting hetraditionto the followinggenerations;theyare sometimesrituallyused in theirgdnaform,but moreoften his formundergoesfurthermodification or hesake of"ritual application" (prayoga). his ap-plication is the actual purpose of these songs and of theSamavedaitself.There are numerous melodies in thesegana collectionsbecauseone verse is generally ung to differentmelodies. But we also meetwith theopposite: different erses are sung to the same melody. Inthatcase, themelodyneeds to be listedonlyonce; and this has ledto some confusionamong students of the Samaveda.The Vedic tradition s celebratedfor the care withwhich it hasbeen handed down; despitethevicissitudes f ndian history uringthe last three thousand years, there are in the Rigveda no variantformsor "readings" (a term based upon theWesternassumptionthat these compositionsare "texts" which are "read"). This ap-plies to theplace ofthe accents as well: it nevervaries. In the caseof the transmission fmelodies, greatervariationis expected; andthis may well account forthe belief that there were originallyathousand schools in theSamaveda (Renou 1947, 88) as againsttwoin the case of the Rigveda and Yajurveda each. When one hearscontemporary raditionsof the Samaveda, the musical renderingsvary greatly.Yet, two traditionscan be clearly distinguished:theKauthuma-Ranaiyanlya,which s stillfound n many partsof ndia(chieflyTamilnad, Andhra, Karnataka and Maharashtra); and theJaiminlya which is confined to Kerala and a few villages inTamilnad.The Jaiminlya is almost extinct; its manuscriptsare rare andhave, with a few exceptions, remained unpublished. The Kau-thuma-Rana-yaniyatradition of two closely connected schools,which I shall refer o as K-R, is stillrelatively trong, nd its textshave been publishedin their ntirety.n these atter exts,a simplenotationforthepitchofthetonesof thesongshas been adopted inthe manuscripts,most ofwhich are of recentdate (i.e., no morethan a fewcenturiesold). The printed extshave adopted thisnota-tionin whichthenotesare referred o withthehelp ofthe numerals1,...,7 which designate pitches in their descending order, again



17/33

48 FritsStaalwith intervalsof roughlya second. There are seven notes in theSamaveda accordingtothesemanuscriptnotations,which s consis-tent with some of the traditional accounts (e.g., that of theNaradasiksa).In thegramageyaganaf theK-R school, our verse is listed as item468, and it is providedwith nine melodies to whichit is sung. Thefirst f these, referred o as "GG 468.1", is the following:

Ir 2 1 2 1 2 r 1 2 2svadaisthaya / madaistha-ya// pavasvaso / madha'1 ra'23 ya //indrayapa//tavaisui'23 a'343h/o'2345 i //dia// (10)In order to know how thisactually sounds, a fewmore conven-tions mustbe explained: "r" denotes engthening; henumeralsinthe line sound the same as those written bove the syllables,eachlastingone beat or time unit (mdtra); heyalso induce lengtheningoftheprecedingsyllable.The song consistsof iveportionsthat areseparated by double bars ("//"), further ubdivided into smallerportions eparatedbysinglebars ("/"). The numberofthese atter,smaller subdivisionsvaries, but the former ubdivisioninto five sconstant n an important lass ofrituals: thesefiveportions,calledbhakti, re of fundamental mportance in the Soma rituals,wheretheyare chantedby differentriestsfacingdifferent irections, it-ting in a particularfashionand following patternthat is alwaysthe same (see AGNI I, 608-609). The fiveportions,which shouldeach be sung with a single breath, are called: (1) prastdva("prelude"), (2) udgftha"chant"), (3) pratihdra"response"), (4)upadrava"accessory") and (5) nidhana"finale"). Three of thefourSamaveda priests participate in such a chant, viz., Prastota,Udgata, and Pratiharta.The assignmentofbhakti ortionsto themis as follows:

1) prastavaby Prastota;2) udgftha y Udgata;3) pratihara y Pratiharta;4) upadrava y Udgata; and5) nidhanaby all three.When we compare (10) with the original verse (4), we observethat certain syllableshave been expanded, or otherwisemodified.For example, many of the shorta's are lengthened nto long d's,and i and e have become di. The latter modification s well known



18/33

TheSound fReligion 49to linguists: it is the famousvrddhi"lengthening") discoveredbythe Sanskrit grammarians that is referred o in the first uitra fPanini's grammar.At the same time,the notionofvrddhis one ofthecornerstones f ndo-European comparative phonology,as wellas thebasis of our notionof "sound law." This illustrates n pass-ing that the derivation of the ritual chants of the Samaveda fromtheRigveda (and notonlythe formation f thePadapatha from heRigveda, as V.N. Jha has shown) has contributed o the originofthe Sanskritgrammaticaltradition.

These phoneticor sound modifications re oftendetermined,orpartly determined, by the formal nature of the syllables of theoriginal, in particularby their ength; the structure f the song istherefore elated to theoriginalmeterwhichis also based upon thedistinction between shortand long syllables. These relationshipsare dealt with n textssuch as the (K-R) Puspastitra,which makesuse ofgrammaticaltechnicalterms such as vrddhind a greatmanyothers. Song (10) is also called a gayatri ong-a circumstance towhich we shall return.We finallyobserve that in (10) new syllableshave been added,in particularthe termination f the upadrava nd all ofthenidhana:

o'2345 i //da //Such syllablesare called stobha. hey are meaninglessand are oftensimilar to the later mantras and dharanis of Tantrism (whether"Hindu" or "Buddhist"). It stands to reason that these syllableswere originally dded in order to completeor fill hegaps in a pre-existingmelody,but thisassumptioncan onlybe testedbystudyinga largernumberof melodies in associationwith the textualsourcesto which theyare set.In order to studythe ritual significanceof our song we need tobe familiarwith the structure fthe entiresystemof tsderivativesin the corpus of the Samaveda. Instead of pursuing this bynumerical references o thepublished texts of theK-R Samaveda,which would be intelligible nly the specialists, t will be more in-teresting nd worthwhile o publish songs from the corpus of theJaiminiya. Since these songs have never beforebeen published, Ihave made use of recordings nd of a copy of a manuscript n theMalayalam script prepared by my collaborator Itti Ravi Nam-



19/33

50 Frits taalbudiri. The originalmanuscript s in thepossessionofAsko Parpola(UniversityofHelsinki). Two othermanuscriptsof theJaiminiyasongs are known: theyare B 497 and B 61-62 of the India OfficeLibrary, both discovered by A. C. Burnell in the 1870's in theTamil region and both written n the Grantha script. have men-tioned themostimportantvariant"readings" (referred o as "C")thatoccur in a handwritten opy completedby Willem Caland in1906, which was based upon B 497 and collated withB 61 and B62. (For theAranyageyagana, Caland did not note the stobhas orthe musical syllable notation given in B 62). A photograph ofCaland's manuscriptwas in thepossessionofDr. A. A. Bake at theSchool of Oriental and AfricanStudies, and was given to me byMrs. Bake. The original s in theUniversityLibraryofUtrecht.Asthe reader will see, some ofthevariantshelp toestablishthebound-aries between the bhakti ortions. There are still instanceswherethese remain unclear in the manuscripttradition,and thereforemustbe determinedfromoral tradition.This is easy to do becauseofthe rule thatone bhakti as to be chanted withone breath. If thenumber ofbhakti ortions s differentromfive, he methodofchan-tinghas to be further pecified.Here follow henine songsbased upon thegayatriversefrom heGramageyagana:

Jaiminlya Gramageyagana 49.2.1-9(1) svadayisthaya madayisthaya / pavasva somadharaya / in-drayapa / tavayi sfitaih oyila //(2) svadisthaya ya iya madisthaya/pavasva so iya iya madharaya/ indra-yapa ya iya / tavayi suitah/oyi a //(3) svadisthayau ho va iya madisthaya / pavasva sau ho va iyamadharaya / indraya pau ho va iya / tavayi stitah/oyila //C: poho(4) oyi svadi / sthayamadisthayavuvova /pavasva soma dharayao indra /ya pa au ho va / tave suitah//(5) uhuvayi svadi / sthaya madisthaya au ho va / pavasva somadharaya uhuva indrayapa / tava au ho va / sfitah//(6) svadayisthaya madisthaya pavasva somadharaya ayindraya paha bu / tava yi suta bu / va //



20/33


21/33

52 FritsStaalpoint of view, are unexpected variations and varieties. Thesefeatures are characteristic of the Samaveda, Kauthuma-Ranayanlya as well as Jaiminiya.Whenever regularpatterns eemtoemerge,there re new deviations thatbreakthepattern.To treatthe text as if t were corruptwould be tomiss itsveryraisond'etre.But even ifwe accept itsplayfuldeviations,we find that the rulesof this game oftenescape us. Many formsthat may seem to beprintingmistakes or mistakes of the manuscriptsare thereforenfactwhat theyshould be."

The seventh of this sequence of nine songs is used in itsGramageyagana form n theAgnicayana ritual.After he birdaltarhas been fully onsecrated,when it is regardedas ferocious krura)and dreadful (ghora), it has to be brought under control andpacified. To this end the Adhvaryu, the chief priest of the Ya-jurveda, assistedby thePratiprasthata,pours a continuous ibationofgoatmilk over thewesternbrickofthe northernwing. This brickis chosen because it is relatively oft nd tender,faraway from hecenterofthe altar which s centerofpower, and also because it canbe easilyapproached fromdifferentides AGNI I, 509 ff.). Duringthisoblation,theAdhvaryurecites hefamousSatarudrjyarRudram(Taittiriya Samhita 4.5), which derives its popularity partlyfromthe factthat twas subsequently nterpretedwithin theperspectiveof Saiva theism Gonda 1980; Arnold, forthcoming).During thisoblation and recitation, heUdgata singsa sequence of 57 samans,together alled Flow ofMilk (ksfradhdrd).he fourth fthese is ourGG 49.2.7.

Why was this song chosen to perform his function? t fitswiththe othersonlyto some extent: t shares withmost a triplerepetition(of "tava ii"), and withmany the stobha "au ho va'." Both thesefeatures,however, are quite common in the Samaveda. The morecomplex features hatdistinguish seriesof ater songs in theFlowof Milk sequence (cf. Staal 1983b) are notfound n it.One is tempt-ed to believe that there s no answer to thequestionofwhythispar-ticularsongwas selectedforuse at thisparticularpointofthe ritual.It came from he collection ike a seed that fallsfrom blossom andis carried throughthe wind until it settlesdown somewhere.What about the stobha "tava Ii" itself?Again, we observe aphonological, and therefore inguistic correspondence--or is it



22/33

The Soundof Religion 53pseudo-linguistic?"Tava u" comes from"-tave," which shouldyield, in linguistic erms,"tavai" or "tavayi," as indeed itdoes inmany othersongs ofthe sequence GG 49.2. What we find,there-fore, s a variation ofa linguistic elationship.This is quite commonin thesesongs, and it supportsthe idea that thederivationofsongsfrom verses is closely connectedwith the originationoflinguisticsin India.In Sanskrit,"tava" also has a meaning: itmeans "yours." Thestobha can be taken to mean "yours U,," which is almost as goodas "yours truly." But thismeaning correspondence s undoubtedlyadventitiousand without ignificance,which does not imply,how-ever, that it could not evoke semantic associations among someusers. "Tava," moreover,occurs in other stobhas see Puspasfitra,ed. Simon, 1909, 770 s.v. tavatyad), nd "u" is quite famous inlater Tantrism (see, for example, Padoux 1963, 203-206).Historical connexions between Vedic stobhas and Tantric bija-mantras are likelyto exist(see Staal 1985a): a good example is thefamous Tantricphatwhichoccurred already in the Samaveda (seevan der Hoogt 1929, 99; cf.phdt hatphatphatphatphat:AGNI I,416).Next we shall consider some of the more esoteric "songs to besung in the forest."Jaiminlya Aranyageyagana 15.7 (correspond-ing to K-R AG 16.1) includes the following ong based upon ourverse:ayamayam ayamayam ayamayam svadisthaya madayisthaya /pavasva somadharaya / indrayapa tavayi suitah / ayamayamayamayam ayamaya au ho va / i //C: ayamayamayamaya (2x), ayamayamayamayamayamayamauhova

Again, there is triplerepetition,and "ayam" also happens tomeansomething, viz., "this one," without carrying any deepersignificance. It is a well known Vedic stobha (see van der Hoogt1929, 11: ayam ah, 91: ayam yayam, 9: ayamvayau,111: ayam) ndis perhaps related to theequally well-knownTantric stobha "aim"(see, forexample, Bharati 1970, 119).This song is rituallyused in the construction ftheAgnicayanaaltar. When the bricks of the first ayer are laid down (which is



23/33

54 FritsStaalcalled cryate, rom the root ci fromwhich cayana,citi,caitya, tc.derive) theUdgata chants occasionally, apparently onlywhen it isthe turn of a ritually significantbrick to be deposited and con-secrated. At the consecration of the seventhbrick,which is calledDuirvaafter hegrassof thatname, theAdhvaryurecitesTaittiriyaSamhita 4.2.9.2 c-d (see AGNI I, 423):"Rising up from verystem,from very oint, diirva,extendto usa thousandfold,a hundredfold.You who extend with a hundred, arise with a thousandTo you, goddess brick,may we offerwithoblation."At the beginning of this recitation the Adhvaryu looks at theUdgata, to alerthim, and the Udgata intones his song, AG 15.7.Why this song is chantedhere at this time is not known. There isno specific phonetic, phonological, syntactic, semantic orpragmatic similarity etween recitation nd chant, apart fromthefact that the recitation s again in the gayatrimeterand the chantis a gayatrichant-both varieties that are exceedinglycommon.

No specific semantic connexion appears to exist between theritualapplicationsof thesetwo derivativesfromour Rigvedic versethat occur in the two basicganabooks oftheSamaveda. Otherritualuses ofchants thatare derived from hesesongs pertaintothe Somaritual and are listed n theUha and Uhya (or Rahasya) GCna collec-tions of the Samaveda. In these two collections, the songs areordered in the same sequence in whichtheyare used in the Somarituals, and theyare given in the actual forms n which theyaresung.The ritual context of the Soma ceremonies has already beenbrieflymentionedin the first ection. In theAgnistoma, therearethree pressingsof Soma; at the thirdpressing, there are two se-quences of chants and recitations;the first f these, which is theeleventhsequence ofthe entirepressing day, consists ofa seriesofseventeen songs, of which the first nd the fourth re based uponour verse. These songs are listed in Uhagana 3.2-6 (see AGNI I,646-648), but there are several difficulties, otablyone remarkedupon by Caland (Caland-Henry 1907, 180): the first hree songsare not isted there thoughtheirtextualform,withoutmelody,oc-curs in thecorrespondingpassages ofthe Samhita). So how shouldtheybe sung?



24/33

TheSoundofReligion 55The answer is that these are to be sung in theGayatra melody,which is explained somewhereelse, once and for ll, but not in thecorpus of the Samaveda. The same holds forotherverses in thegayatrz eter, n particularthefamousGayatriverse of theRigveda(3.62.10) that is not listed in the Samaveda either. There is somespecial reason for hisseparatetreatment,whichhas never been ex-plained, and forwhich a solution can only be found ifwe returnonce more to our point of departure.One of the most famous Vedic mantras is generallyreferred o

after he common meter n which it is composed: the Gayatri. hismantra s reciteddaily duringtheSandhya ceremony, nd is taughtto everybrahminboy at the time ofhis Upanayana, an initiationceremonyor "second birth," duringwhichhe receives his sacredthread.The textof the Gayatri (Rigveda 3.62.10) is:tdt avitdrvdrenzyambhdrgoevdsyahimahi (11)dhzyod nahpracoddydt.The distributionof long and shortsyllables in this verse is asfollows:

V--- - - -

The translation s straightforward:"May we receive thisdesirablelightof the god Savitr,who shall impel our thoughts."

This mantra is also called Savitri after the god Savitr. It is oftenquoted in Vedic literature, ometimes n the context of a wish forinspiration see, for xample, Gonda 1980a, 45, 104); and is recitedduring many rites and on many occasions (see Gonda 1980b, s.v."Savitrl"). According to the Satapatha Brahmana (2.3.4.39), allwishes of the sacrificerwill be fulfilled y thismantrabecause theyare impelledbySavitr,who is the"impeller" (prasavitr)fthegods.This is a typicalcommentofthatBrahmana-vacuous and ad hoc.



25/33

56 FritsStaalWhy was this mantra picked to play such an importantandauspicious role? There are hundreds of mantras n theRigveda thatsay something imilar. The answer to such questions is always thesame: there s no answer. It fell from heheap like the windblownseed we have already encountered. For some arbitraryreason,supreme significance s attached to it. It occurs everywhere,withone exception: it does not occur in the Samaveda. Or rather, t isplaced at the beginning in some collections in some manuscriptsand in most of the printed editions), remaining outside the

systematically umbered sequences and all classifications,while inother collectionsit is simplynot found.The reason for this special treatment, nce the mantra had ac-quired its special function, s not difficult o find:thismantra hadtoo much meaning. A prayerfor nspirationthat is daily recited,thatdefines brahmin and distinguisheshim from thers, s not thekind of mantrathatprovidestheauspicious butmeaninglesssoundsthat make up the melodies that accompany ritual activity.TheSavitri, in fact, s so important o a brahminthat thas spilledoverto othertwice-born astes, albeit in a differentorm:Ksatriyashavea Savitri in the tristubh eter, and Vaiiyas have one in the agatimeter see Malamoud 1977, 89). The Gayatrithushas meaning aswell as social significance-unlike most mantras and other ritualchants-although this significance s partlytheoretical, ike muchthat concerns the var~naystem.And so it remains significant ndisolated.The Ga-yatri melody occupies a similar position in theceremonies of the Soma ritual. Many of the stuti r stotrahants,whose sequences definea Soma ritual,are setto thismelody. Theyall receive the same treatment, treatmentwhich n factobliteratesalmost all themeaningfulcharacteristics f the originals, replacingthemby stobhas and othermeaningless sounds, particularly ongo's. Since only theprastava etains the original text, t is only thatportionthat s explicitlynotedin the tradition.The otherbhakti or-tions are always sung in the same manner. The udgfthas always:6 va o va o va hm bha o va,withvery long o's (note that South Indian scripts,unlike Nagari,distinguishbetween shorto and long 6o. The remainingbhakti or-tions are collectively reated as follows.The Pratihartaalways sings



26/33

TheSoundof Religion 57"hrnm"ogetherwith the Udgata, breathes in, and chants "vak"(which comes fromnowhere) while he holds his breath--thereforealmostinaudibly.The Yajamana and some otherpriests, n accord-ance withcomplexrules, should also chant "o" (see AGNI I, 603).We are now in a positionto return o theritualuses in the Somaceremonies of our verse, Rigveda 9.1.1. We can now understandwhy,for hefirst ong ofthe thirdpressingsequence ofchants,onlytheprastdva eed to be known. It is listed n theSarnhitaas follows:svadisthayamadisthayom aiminiya Arcika 64.1).The fourth hant is listed in Uha Gana 3.2. It preservesmore ofthe original textalthoughthe udgfthaas also disappeared:svadisthayama da yisthaya/6 sva so o / yindra/6pa tava havuva / sil tah // see AGNI I, 646).In all the cases of ritual application of mantras we have so farstudied, nothingremains of the richliteratureof the Vedas but acollection of sounds and syllables. Entire passages that originallywere pregnant with meaning are reduced to long o's. This ispreciselywhat distinguishesmantras romthe originalverse: to bemade into a mantra,and thus fit orritualconsumption,a verse hasto be subjected toformal ransformations,perations thatapply toformbut not to meaning. This is whyRenou referred o mantrasas "poussiere v6dique," and whyhe mentioned"le d6coupage desvieux hymnesen formulesou meme fragments evenus des corpsinertes dans la trame liturgique" (1960, 76-77 quoted byMalamoud 1983, 33).Ritual traditionshave obvious social significance n that theyidentifygroups and distinguishthemfrom each other. They givepeople, in thathackneyedcontemporary hrase, "a sense of denti-ty." That identity,however, is often due to distinctions hat restupon meaningless phonetic variations. Thus the Jaiminiya andKauthuma-Ranayaniya schools differfrom each other by suchcharacteristics s vowel length, or because the formeruses "a"where the atteruses "o." Up to thepresent ime,the Vedic schoolsthemselvesare distinguishedfrom ach otherby such variationsofsound that can be more easily explained in grammatical than inreligiousterms.The Gayatrimantra tselfs pronounceddifferentlyby Nambudiri brahmans belongingto theYajurveda or Samavedaand Nambudiris belongingto the Rigveda: the formerpronounce



27/33

58 FritsStaalthevisarga".h"

at the end of"nah" in (11) as an "f," a sound thatis generallybelieved not to occur in Sanskrit.Actually, the bilabial spirant "f" is an optional variant pre-scribedbya grammaticalrule which also introduces nothersound,the velar "kh", which is believed to be absent from Sanskrit.Special symbolsare needed to ad these sounds to the alphabet, asin the manuscriptsor printededitions of Panini's rule 8.3.37:kupvoh k,.9pau ca," and t may be substituted n theplace of thevisarga when a voiceless velar or a voiceless labial, re-

spectively,follow."In thissymbolism,"%k" refers o thevelar "kh", and " P p"to the bilabial spirant"f'. The interpretationfthis rule dependson conventions thathave been established elsewherein the gram-mar. Thus we have to supplypadasya,"in the place of a word,"from 8.1.16; samhitdyam,in continuous pronunciation," from8.2.108; and va, "optionally," from8.3.36. That the rules are tobe understood in this order follows from8.2.1, and that the op-tional va means "preferable" has been shownby Kiparsky 1979).That the Yajurveda and Samaveda have adopted the preferredformis in accordance with the central place they occupy in theritual tradition.In theGayatri,the voiceless abial which follows hevisarga "1h"is the initial "p" of "pracodayat." Thus the variation betweenVedic schools and between theVedas themselves s reduced to theoptionality of grammatical rules. This is not a modernphenomenon; it goes back to the origin of the tradition. Thebilabial spirant"f" occurs not onlyin thegrammarofPanini, butin two phonetic treatises Pratisakhya) of the Yajurveda, namely,the Taittiriya of the Black and the Va-jasaneyi of the White Ya-jurveda. (It is lacking again in theMadhyandina, another school ofthe White Yajurveda: Renou 1942-1957, 396).Throughout thissectionwe have observedthat considerationsofform and formal derivations and transformationsre foremost nthe minds of the ritualists. n some cases these forms ppear to bepurely arbitrary, incetheydo notcorrespondto any typeofformalrelationshipthat is known or seems to make sense. In other casesthe rules of grammar,especially those that introduceoptions, areused and lead to further itualdevelopmentsand proliferation. n



28/33

The SoundofReligion 59both cases the chiefconcernoftheritualists s with rules. They areconstantly oncentrating pon rules, and forms hatare generatedby rules. All theirpreoccupations illustrate he nature of ritual asa rule-governed ctivity.

IIINonsemanticpproaches

In the previous sectionwe saw how a verse of the Rigveda wasturned nto mantras forvarious ritesbybeing stretched ere, com-pressed there, interlarded with vowels and syllables, and finallychopped up to such an extent that its originalformwas no longerrecognizable. Yet all these transformations onform to preciserules, and theoriginalform an not onlybe recovered,but is pres-ent to the mind ofthe ritualperformers. he same cannotbe saidof the meaning. For in the course of these same processes, theoriginal verse is not only rendered well-nigh unintelligible,butmuch of tsmeaninghas disappeared and is no longerrecoverable.This should alert us to thepossibility hatmeaningdoes notoccupycenterstage in the analysisof the ritual. Further nalysisconfirmsthis. For the original meaning of the verse is unknown to thechanters,and neither s itspecifically elatedto any oftheriteswithwhich it has been associated, nor do theseritesshare any commonmeaning or function.The semantic approach to the synchronicstudyofritual thereforeppears fruitless, t least in the case ofourVedic data.Three important uestions remain. The first oncerns the extentto whichthe nonsemanticapproaches discussed in the first ection,viz., the pragmatic,the phoneticor phonological, and the syntac-tic, are helpful n elucidatingthese Vedic data. This is the topic ofthe presentsection. The second question relatesto whetherVedicritual is representative fa class ofrituals,or is unique. The thirdquestion, related to the second, is whetherthe semantic approachhas established anything at all-for if it hasn't, most existingscholarly writingon ritual will have been in vain. I shall take upthe second and thirdquestions in the next section. But first,et usconsider the nonsemantic approaches.



29/33

60 FritsStaalA. Pragmatics

In the studyofVedic ritual and mantras,the "relationship be-tween the expressions and theirusers or contextsof use" that ischaracteristic f pragmaticsis certainly valid fieldof inquiry. Itis, however,partlyconcerned with one of those rarequestions thathave a relatively imple answer: for nsofaras the users are con-cerned,therelationship s straightforward,incethey re invariablythe same in almost all ritual contexts. Like the ritual actsthemselves,most ritual recitations are executed by the Adhvaryuon behalf of the Yajamana, although on specificoccasions otherpriests recite particular pieces. In Soma ceremonies, the sastrarecitations are always executed by the Hota, Maitravaruina,Brahmanacchamsin or Acchavaka priests in accordance withspecificrules. The ritualsongs are always chantedby theUdgata,with a few exceptions, well-knownfrom the tradition(e.g., theSubrahmanyahvana: AGNI I, 369, 386, 596), while the stutiorstotra hants of the Soma ritual are always executed in the samefashionby the trio ofPrastota,Udgata and Pratiharta. Were we toadd a listofexceptionsand special cases, the nformation ontainedin thepresentparagraph, suitablyformulated,would therefore akecare of pragmatic problemsas far as the users are concerned.As for "contexts of use," the ritual context determinesthroughoutwhat is to be recitedor chanted, as well as when andon what occasion. The knowledgeofthesecontextsofuse is an im-portant part of what constitutesa knowledge of the ritual-theknowledgethatdistinguishes ritualspecialistfrom nonritualist.But such "pragmatic" information epends on the structure ftheritual itself, nd cannot replace the latter.A pragmaticanalysisof thefunction ftheusers of themantras,i.e., of the priestlyfunctions,may throw ighton theirposition insocietyoutside heritualenclosure. But such an analysis pertainstohistoricalreconstruction nd is therefore diachronic enterprise,unlike thesynchronic nalysisthatseeksto understandthe ritualasa system. One contemporary scholar who has studied thesehistorical problems fruitfullys the German SanskritistKlausMylius. Mylius has, for example, analysed the officesof twoRigvedic priestswho take part in the Soma ceremonies, the Pota



30/33


31/33

62 FritsStaalcontext,which is the context hat defines hemas mantras; and thequestion ofthemeaning oftheexpressionsof anguage fromwhichmantras are derived in those cases in whichtheyare derived fromlanguage. The situation is similar to that in etymology: theetymologyof a word may throw ighton its original meaning, butitmay have no connexion with tsactual meaning or use. This hasalways been known to Indian and Western inguists, nd althoughitwas ignoredby some Westernphilosophers e.g., Heidegger), ithas been re-discoveredby others e.g., Wittgenstein).The conclu-sion we drawfrom heseconceptualdistinctions s that mantrascanverywell be meaninglesseven in cases wherethey re derived fromverses thatpossess meaning.Using the term"phonology" withreference o mantrasbut with-out making any assumption about theirmeaning, we must nowrecord a remarkable fact: the phonological studyof mantras hasbeen one of the great Indian pastimes from the Vedic period on-ward. In fact, t is likelythatthe studyofthe strangeand peculiarcharacteristics fthese sounds-strange and peculiar because theyare different romordinary language and seem to deviate fromsome of its rules-paved the way for the phonological study of"regular" sounds, viz., the sounds oflanguage, and the rules thatcan account forthem,thus eading to theoriginof inguistics.Thismay be explained a priori,because man is more puzzled and at-tractedby the extraordinary han by the ordinary; but it is alsoborne out by the facts: for the Vedas themselves offered pecula-tions about mantras and language riddles long before a moresystematic tudyof sounds originated n thePratisakhyaand Siksaliteraturesand in the grammaticalworks of Panini and his suc-cessors. Part of the genius ofPanini in factconsists n his recogni-tionthat notonlythe sacred speechof theVedas, but also ordinaryspeech is an interesting bject of scientificnquiry.This earlyem-phasis on linguisticformexplains the grammaticalflavorthat at-taches to almost everythingndian, and certainly o Indian ritual.The phonological studyofthe sound ofreligionas it appears inIndian ritual is thereforedefinitelypromising. This is differenthowever, from Levi-Strauss' preoccupation with distinctivefeatures nd binaryoppositionas a generalmethod for heanalysisof ritual and social structure.



32/33

TheSoundof Religion 63C. Syntax

Withsyntaxwe come to theheart ofthe matter:for t s only syn-tax thatprovidesthe toolswith thehelp of whichwe are in a posi-tionto studyritual structure nd account for therelationships hatobtain betweenritualfacts.Fromwhatwe have seen in theprevioussection, structuralrelationshipsbetween formal expressions areforemost n the minds of Vedic ritualists.In fact,without suchknowledge they could not carry out their ritual tasks. It isknowledgeof thesecomplex structureshat dentifies ritualexpertand distinguisheshim from utsiders.Actually,thesubstanceoftheprevioussectioncan be summedup by outlining hestructures hatmake up thisknowledge. So letus first ry o formulate uch a sum-mary, confiningourselves to the ritual applications of Rigveda9.1.1.The ritualist, irst fall, knows hisverse. That is, he knowshowto recite t,for his s whathe learnedwhenhe learned theRigvedaby heart as a boy-a knowledge he shares with many otherbrahminswho also belong (by birth) to the Rigveda but are notritualists.But there s no traditionaltransmission f themeaningfthe verse, and so he does not necessarilyknow itsmeaning. If hedoes, he mustbe a Sanskritscholar and it has become a matterofpersonal interest o him. A practisingritualistwho is asked forthemeaning of a recitationor song invariably replies: go to a scholarof language or philosophy.A brahminwho belongsto theSamaveda knows more: he knowshow the verses of the Rigveda have been transformed nto songs.He will probably know various chants derived from that verse,depending on his expertise,and if he is really good, he will knowwhere these occur in the collections of the Samavedic corpus-which is large and complicated, as we have seen. He shares suchknowledge, however, with other Samavedins and it stilldoes notqualifyhim as a ritualist.Only the ritual expertor vaidikaknows in addition to an "or-dinary" Rigvedin or Sa-mavedin or Yajurvedin, forthatmatter)the association betweenmantras and acts, and when and where inthe ritualthesehave to be insertedand executed. He knows some-thing ike the following tructure I say "something like," forhe



33/33

64 FritsStaaluses a systemof referencerooted in oral traditionand in somerespectsdifferentrom hesystemused byWesternscholars,whichpresupposes the availabilityof printedtexts):

LANGUAGE Rigveda9.1.1

MANTRA Gramageyagana 9.2.7 Aranyageyagana 5.7 Arcika64.1 Uhagana 3.2I Ituti StutiVACT FlowofMilk 4 Layer , Brick7 Sequence 11 Sequence 11Such a structuremakes sense onlywithin helarger patternof hun-dreds of similarstructures,whichtogether onstitute he edificeofthe ritual. Vedic ritualmakes sense, but it is structural ense. Anexhaustive synchronic nalysis of the ritual can be given in termsof the structural relationships between such forms, withoutreferenceto meaning or external function. Such an analysis willrefer o the rules that relate structures o each other,and is there-fore syntactic n nature. If and when the systemchanges (whichmaybe due to a variety fcauses, semanticas well as nonsemantic),the rulesor the relationsbetween themchange, and this can againbe studiedin syntactic erms. The syntactic pproach can thereforecompletelyaccount for the ritual facts.

(To becontinued)* Paperread, n abbreviated orm, ttheXVth Internationalongress f theInternational ssociation or heHistory fReligionsSydney, 985).Thisarticlewill also be published in the InternationalJournalofAsian Studies Milton Singerissue). I am gratefulo PamelaMacFarlandfornumerous elpful omments nearlierdrafts fthis rticle.2 The termyotistomamayalso be usedtorefer othe lassofSoma ceremoniesof which gnistomas theprototype.

staal_the sound of religion i_numen 33 (1986)

Documents