Bringing the Gods to Mind: Mantra and Ritual in Early Indian Sacrifice

2. Poetry, Ritual, and Associational Thought in Early India: The Theories

Chapter 2 Poetry, Ritual, and Associational Thought in Early India The Theories Contiguity and resemblance is not brought about because it would be good in itself in some metaphysical heaven; it is good form because it comes into being in our experience. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Experience 38 If we were to ask the Catholic housewife and the Hindu businessman what their reasons were for their modern mantras, they would answer with some description of inner thought and outer action: in Varanasi one evening, the businessman said to me: “Whenever I think of Krsna, or sing about Krsna, my mind is settled.” What if the Hindu businessman elevated this statement to a principle, so that the insertion of his mantra into a ritual situation, or even an everyday situation in his life, had the clear and intended effect? And what if he then wrote a manual about it? Such an everyday situation in fact existed in early India. The principle of application was called viniyoga, a powerful hermeneutical principle, often ignored by scholars of early India. Viniyoga, however, can give us new insight into the workings of ritual, society, and creativity. Metonymy over Magic I take a basic insight of Frazer’s—that sympathetic magic works by contiguity—and give its cognitive insights new life and dignity, without the categorical confusion of the early Indologists between magic and religion , or the derogatory implications of the term magic. Some might argue that one could continue to use the term magic but simply reinvigorate it with new meaning and possibility without its derogatory implications— somewhat like the political reinvention of the term queer. I am dubious that this semantic rejuvenation is possible at this stage of the intellectual game, especially when magic remains a popular way of speaking and writing about “bad religion.” Indeed, it still remains a way of writing and speaking about early Indian practices. While I do not think it wise to jettison the term “magic” altogether, especially in its more respectful usages, I would rather add to the conversation the richer and potentially less judgmental terms in theories of metonymy. The Terminology of Magic in Indology Let us be more specific about the problem with the term magic. A number of different critiques can be invoked. Beginning with Malinowski, even modified versions of the substantialist, Frazerian definition (characterized exclusively by instrumental action, manipulative attitudes, and immediate, usually asocial or antisocial goals) have been challenged on several fronts. As part of this critique, many scholars (most notably Neusner, Tambiah, and Versnel) have made specific arguments, including : (1) that “antisocial” magic cannot be seen as an entity distinct from “social” religion on the grounds that magic can be seen as serving particularly social goals, just as religion does; (2) that, conversely, religion can possess as many asocial or antisocial aspects as magic; and (3) that, seen from a sociolinguistic point of view, the mechanisms of a spell are not terribly different from those of prayer.1 What is more, historical case studies have shown that the term magic, and terms analogous to it, have no fixed set of referents; they have different meanings in different circumstances . Such terms are best understood functionally, as a means of social distancing by one group of practitioners from another, or as a way of talking about what “proper” religious behavior is, and what it is not. The confused use of the term magic is especially vivid in the history of Indology—particularly in Indology’s study of the use of mantra in Vedic contexts. For example, scholars have readily admitted that the Atharva Veda is in large part comprised of mantras from the Rg and Sama Vedas; however, because of its practical nature, the Atharva Veda is somehow no longer truly canonical but falls instead under the heading of “lesser spells” and “charms.” A. B. Keith’s treatment of the hotr is another excellent early example. The hotr is the priest of the sacrifice most responsible for the recitation of mantra. Because of this function, Keith The Theories 39 characterizes the hotr’s role as essentially that of a magician, one that is contrasted with the adhvaryu, the ritualist: It is wholly impossible to doubt that, if the Adhvaryu really thought that the acts of the sacrifice and the actual offerings were what mattered, his view was not in the least shared by the hotr, who was of the opinion that his...