Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Why the Veda Has No Author: Language as Ritual in Early Mīmāṃsā and Post-Modern
Theology
Author(s): Francis X. Clooney
Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter, 1987), pp.
659-684
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1464680
Accessed: 17-11-2016 17:02 UTC
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 forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press, American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of the American Academy of Religion. LV/4
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
660 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 661
The religious
interconnected worldFirst,
systems. of the Mim.imsakas
there was comprised
were the traditional of two
sacrifices,
which had been practiced and described even a thousand years ear-
lier. In their primary and modified forms these sacrifices numbered in
the hundreds and ranged from the simple, which took moments to
perform, to the elaborate, which took years. But the basic form of a
sacrifice was straightforward: when a deity is invoked and something
material burnt in a fire "for" that deity, a sacrifice occurs. However
complex a sacrifice might become, its core action is the destruction of
something from one's property in a fire, in the presence of an invoked
deity. Throughout this article I reserve the word "sacrifice" for this
core action, while using the word "ritual" in a broader sense, to indi-
cate the entire set of texts, actions, performers, deities, material things,
and attitudes about life and death that constituted the environment in
which sacrificing could make sense.
The second system was that of the Veda, the totality of the texts
relevant to the sacrifices. Some texts described what was needed for
the various sacrifices, who was allowed to perform them and for what
reasons, when they were appropriately performed, which sacrific
were suited for which gods, when and why the sacrifice was first per
formed "in the beginning," etc. Other texts were the prayers recited
during the sacrifices themselves, paired with specific actions.
The twelve books of the Pdrva Minamsd Stitras consist of discus-
sions that deal with the corpus of orthodox sacrifices and orthodox text
in three basis ways. First, there are discussions that seek to resolv
smaller and larger inconsistencies and ambiguities that pertain to the
performance of particular sacrifices and to the interpretation of th
texts about them. A discussion might focus on whether the designated
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
662 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Second,
by which theproblems
such Mimai.sakas
couldsought to articulate
be resolved. Thus (tothe
use invariable
the same rules
examples), the Mimamsakas proposed, refined, and qualified rules gov-
erning "changes in the names of gods in prayers" and rules governing
the evaluation of "real and apparent useless repetitions in sacrificial
performance." Moreover, the goal was not only the discovery of a
complete set of particular rules, but also the complete set of the "meta-
rules" that would regulate the application of rules in various cases.
would not
became. have
There werewarranted
other textsthe
thatimmense
described project that Mimad.m
the performances step
by step and in detail and resolved by some compromise most practical
problems that would arise. Thus, concern for the larger rules gov-
erning the ritual world probably was the primary focus of Mima.m
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 663
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
664 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
who observe them (so that they must be obeyed). When the rules are
known and obeyed, they depend on no particular opinion, any more
than do the rules of grammar. Because they govern the totality of
experience, they overcome fragmentation by making the location and
relation of any particular fragment-be it a god, a human, a word-
more important than the stability of the thing itself. In the course of
articulating these rules, the Mimamsakas made the three claims cited
above, to which we will now turn, attending as well to their modern
analogues.
Mim.msakas
the havestrictly
sacrifices exist no problem admitting
for their that
satisfaction, andhumans may think
it is reasonable that that
the situation appear this way to performers. But the Mimamsakas also
insist that this human perspective contributes to a more comprehen-
sive primary goal: the enactment of the particular body of words and
actions that constitute a particular sacrifice and, ultimately, the whole
body of orthodox rites. The Veda states unequivocally that sacrifices
are to be performed, and human performers are obviously required if
any sacrifice is to be completed. No offering can actually be burnt in
the fire unless some potential sacrificer is sufficiently motivated to
expend the required effort and money. But, the Mimamsakas reason,
if the sacrificer's gain were the "absolute" motivation of the sacrificial
performances, there would be no basis for the obligatory nature of the
command to sacrifice. If human satisfaction were the only warrant for
the performances, there might eventually be a cessation of sacrifices
altogether.
The Mimamsakas situate the performer in a world rightly ordered
around the sacrifice, and this order is called dharma. When a sacrifice
is properly performed-with all the words uttered at just the right
point in the action, and all the actions performed in the right sequence
using the right materials, by performers from the right families who
have received the right education, etc.-this right performance
embodies dharma, the ultimate value to which all else is subordinate.
That humans contribute to dharma is what matters, whether or not
they are aware of their role in it. In fact, if humans act out of self-
interest, they are likely to play their parts better than if they do not,
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 665
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
666 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
(Staal,sensational.
lessly 1979; 1986) is according the
Notwithstanding to Mima.msa partially
claim that "what true but need-
the Mimunms
in fact ended up teaching is that the rituals have to be performed for
their own sake" (Staal, 1979:7), it is evident that even the most general
Mimamsaka notion of sacrificial dharma never excludes the satisfac-
4 For a fuller examination of the meaning of artha in the Sutras, see my 1984 University
of Chicago Ph.D. dissertation, "Retrieving the Pfirva Mima.msu of Jaimini", due to
appear as Volume 17 in the series, Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, Indo-
logical Institute, University of Vienna--especially Chapter IV, and the briefer 1986
exposition.
5 In commenting on 12.4.37 Sabara asserts that in cases of conflict the "inherent cohe-
sion" of the ritual takes precedence over "meaningfulness."
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 667
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
668 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
6 How sentences come to mean what they mean is a subject of heated debate in later
Mimamsa. Around 700 CE the schools of Kumrrila Bhatta and Prabhakara took the
positions, respectively, that the sentence meaning is in some way commu
through the sum of word meanings or that the sentence meaning cannot be trac
to the word meanings; the subtleties of their positions, however, go far beyond w
be said in this context. In my view, the Prabhdkara school more faithfully re
Jaimini's Mimamsa.
7 I.e., if they "need" one another to make complete sense. The translation is that
Kunjunni Raja, p. 152. His comments (152 ff.) on the later use of Jaimini's defini
pertinent.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 669
the following
Vedic text
collections of from the Taittiriya
texts related Sam.hita
to the sacrifices: (1.1.4.2), one of the
On the impulse of the god Savitr, with the arms of the
Agvins, with the hands of Pisan, I offer thee dear to Agni, to Agni
and Soma.8
Correct reading of the passage allows for repetition of the verb, "
offer," with each phrase-"I offer on the impulse ... I offer with th
arms ... etc."-and there would then be no strictly grammatical rea-
son that each should not be a separate sentence. But in the appropri
ate context of the Dariapfirnamisa sacrifice, it is clear that only on
offering is at issue, modified by the mentioned deities-Savitr, Aivins,
etc. This ritual location, not an independent reading of the words
themselves as a grammatical unit, determines the limits of the unit of
meaning. One cannot read properly without knowing the ritual
context.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
670 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
"context"
done, (prakaran.a),
in need of a manner "the declaration
of doing."10 In theofMimrimsa
that which needs to be
framework,
"context" pertains only secondarily and by extension to words in need
of one another, i.e., the other words one needs to know (the other
sentences that have to be read) in order to understand the point of any
particular sentence. One must take into account other-usually, but
not always, physically-nearby statements to understand what one is
reading. Originally, this too pertained to the texts accompanying the
above-mentioned primary and accessory actions, but by extension it
came to refer to any text and its context(s).11
These examples of "statement" and "context" show that in
Mrh-nisa the meaning of texts is ascertained by reference to ritual
actions, which are themselves meaningful; meaning contributes to
purposefulness, and purpose is first of all ritual purpose. The position
suggests that for the Milmarmsakas, intelligibility-in the widest
sense-is a property neither of independent texts, nor of the actions
taken separately from the words pertaining to them, nor of external
referents such as performers and gods, both of whom are merely actors
within the language-ritual process. Rather, meaning is disclosed in the
complex, multi-perspectival sacrificial event, which includes all these.
The interdependence of sacred text and ritual action is genera-
lized when the Mimnimsakas divide the Veda into two major portions,
each of which is ritually defined: mantras and brdhmanas, with
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 671
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
672 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
3. The Veda has no author, no meaning beyond the words and the
sacrificial actions themselves; one cannot appeal to a pre-
verbal intention to get beyond the words.
If we connect the ritual implication of language with the earlier
claim that in a sacrifice the sacrificer is only an instrument, and neither
the creator of the rites nor their finality, it should not come as a sur-
prise that like the sacrifices themselves, the Veda has no creator, no
author. People do not invent their rituals, nor author their sacred
texts, says Mimfamsa.
This authorlessness is based on a homologization of the speaker or
text-performer to the sacrificial-performer. Because the Veda is insep-
13 It is interesting to note in addition that the division of the Veda into three Vedas is a
ritual one, grouping texts to be used by the three active priests at major rites: texts for
the chanter (hotr) are in the Rg Veda, for the singer (udgatr) in the Sdma Veda, and for
the priest performing the actions (adhvaryu) in the Yajur Veda.
14 But without using this term until a subsequent discussion of the meaningfulness of
mantras, in 1.2.43.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 673
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
674 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
"intent"that
maintain of the
thetdtparya
text, with the
or the realauthor's
purport intent.
meant by".it. can
. the Mim.msakas
be stud-
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 675
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
676 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
consider
hardly the possibility
anything to religionthat
but aa never-ending
thorough "Mima.msification" leav
series of sacrificial per-
formances, or a religion so peculiarly defined that just about no one
can believe in it.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 677
Similarly,discourse
new theological Mima.msa's relentless
that was critique
to be essential to significantly shaped the
Hinduism. Taylor
himself has suggested that attention to non-Western religious tradi-
tions is invited and facilitated by the deconstructionist move, and even
that the connections of language and ritual in Buddhism might be spe-
cifically helpful.
For example, it might be possible to establish a constructive com-
parison between the textual strategies of deconstruction and
those deployed in some Buddhist texts. Inasmuch as deconstruc-
tive critics subscribe to a performative view of language, it might
not be unreasonable to expect similarities between the practice
of deconstruction and certain Buddhist meditative and ritual
places. (Wyschogrod, et. al.: 553)
The suggestion of comparison with Buddhism is appropriate an
promises to be fruitful if seriously pursued. But I prefer to search o
the comparison
were interested inwith Mimamsa, precisely
reappropriating, albeit by because the Mim~.amsakas
drastic measures, the
"old religion" of the Vedic Scriptures and sacrifices, placing them on a
new basis. Except perhaps in a very extended sense, the Buddhists did
not share this goal.
We have already seen that the Mimamsa, in its de-emphasis on the
gods and the human person and its reintegration of the Veda into a
ritual context precedent to any author or performer, parallels many
deconstructionist themes. For a few Hindus, perhaps, the Mimamsa
defense of the meaningfulness of the Veda was a sufficient rehabilita-
tion of the tradition. But I wish now to explore a particular response to
Mim~msa, by a school of thinkers not entirely satisfied with the
Mimamsa synthesis but also unwilling and unable to revert to the pre-
Mimamsa orthodoxy. Certain developments within the Vedanta,
which has accurately been called the "Later Mimamsa," offer us a
model we should seriously consult in fashioning a post-deconstruction-
ist religious thinking that is not in total disrupture from the recogniza-
ble religious tradition of Christianity.17
There were many responses to the Mimamsa doctrines, particu-
larly their displacement of the human performer and the author. It
17 For simplicity, from this point on I treat the problem of deconstruction as a problem
for Christian theology although, of course, deconstruction challenges all (religious) ways
of thinking.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
678 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
18 Sabara thus sparked a controversy which occupied the two main Mimamsa schools in
later generations. I developed this theme in Chapter 7 of my forthcoming book (see n.4
above).
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 679
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
680 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 681
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
682 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Clooney: Language as Ritual 683
REFERENCES
Carman, John B.
1974 The Theology of Ramanuja. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Clooney, Francis X.
1986 "Jaimini's Contribution to the Theory of Sacrifice as the
Experience of Transcendence." History of Religions 25:
199-212.
Foucault, Michel
1984 "What is An Author?" The Foucault Reader. Ed. P. Rabi-
now. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gerow, Edwin
1982 "What is Karma [Kim Karmeti]? An Exercise in Philo-
sophical Semantics." Indologica Tauriensia x: 87-116.
Kunjunni Raja, K.
1977 Indian Theories of Meaning. Madras: Adyar Library.
Lipner, Julius
1986 The Face of Truth. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Murty, K. Satchidananda
1974 Reason and Revelation in Advaita Vedanta Delhi: 1974.
Penner, Hans H.
1985 "Language, Ritual and Meaning." Numen 32: 1-16.
Staal, Frits
1979 "The Meaninglessness of Ritual." Numen 26: 2-22.
1986 "The Sound of Religion." Numen 33: 33-64.
Tambiah, S.J.
1979 "A Performative Approach to Ritual." Proceedings of the
British Academy 55: 113-169.
Taylor, Mark C.
1984 Erring: A Postmodern A/theology. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
684 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:02:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms