The Meaninglessness of Ritual Author(s): Frits Staal Reviewed work(s): Source: Numen, Vol. 26, Fasc. 1 (Jun.

, 1979), pp. 2-22 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269623 . Accessed: 07/08/2012 05:10
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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Vol.XXVI, Fasc. I Numen,

THE MEANINGLESSNESS
FRITS STAAL

OF RITUAL
svarge'pipipilikahsanti "even in heaven thereare ants" Sanskrit Proverb

recorded event,which lasted twelvedays, was filmed,photographed, and extensivelydocumented.From twentyhours of rough footage, a 45-minutefilm,"Altar of Fire." Robert Gardner and I producedl Two records are planned with selectionsfrom the eightyhours of recordedrecitationand chant. Photographsof the ceremonieswere with the chief Namtaken by Adelaide de Menil. In collaboration a definiteaccount and otherscholars,I am preparing budiriritualists of the ceremonies,which will appear in two illustratedvolumes entitled:"Agni - The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar." I shall here be concernednot with empiricaldescription, but with theoretical Vedic ritual is not only the oldest surviving implications. ritual of mankind; it also provides the best source material for a of ritual.This is not because it is close to any alleged"original" theory ritual.Vedic ritualis not primitive and not an Ur-ritual. It is sophisand the of it is the a But already product long development. ticated most elaborate and of the account Sanskrit largest, (on manuals) best documented among the ritualsof man. Hubert and Mauss, who noted these factsin I909, used the Vedic animal sacrificeas sourcematerial for the construction of a ritual paradigm ("un scheme abstraitdu 1 sacrifice"). However, theydid not know that these ritualsare still so that many data were inaccessibleto them. I shall use performed, data fromthe 1975 performance and textual materialfrom Sanskrit manuals, in particular the drauta stitras, a literatureexclusively to ritual which dates from the eighththroughfourthcendlevoted turies B.C.
I H. Hubertand M. Mauss, "Essai sur la natureet la fonction du sacrifice," et des religions, Milanges d'histoire I9go9,page 22.

1975 in a village in southwestIndia by Nambudiribrahmins.This

Vedic ritual,was performed in The Agnicayana,a 300ooo-year-old

TheMeaninglessness of Ritual I

A widespreadbut erroneousassumption about ritualis that it consists in symbolic whichreferto something activities else. It is characteristic of a ritualperformance, that it is self-contained and however, self-absorbed. The performers are totally immersedin the proper executionof their complex tasks. Isolated in their sacred enclosure, on correctness of act, recitation and chant. Their they concentrate if not obsession,is withrules.There are no symbolic concern, primary meaningsgoing throughtheirmindswhen theyare engaged in performingritual. Such absorption, by itself,does not show that ritual cannot have a symbolic meaning.However,also when we ask a brahmin explicitly the rituals are we never receive an answer which why performed, refers to symbolicactivity.There are numerousdifferent answers, such as: we do it because our ancestorsdid it; because we are eligible to do it; because it is good for society; because it is good; because it is our duty; because it is said to lead to immortality; because it leads to immortality. A visitorwill furthermore observethata person who has performed a Vedic ritualacquires social and religiousstatus, which involvesotherbenefits,some of themeconomic.Beyond such one gets involvedin individualcase histories.Some boys generalities have neverbeen given muchof a choice,and have been taughtrecitations and rites as a matterof fact; by the time theyhave mastered or motivated to do. Others these,thereis littleelse theyare competent are inspiredby a spirit of competition. The majoritywould not be able to come up with an adequate answer to the question why they engage in ritual. But neitherwould I, if someone were to ask me about it. why I am writing Why ask such personal questions? It mightbe more proper and fruitfulto ask specific questions about the meaning of particular rites. Some such questions do receive specific answers, on which and scholars generallyagree. The Yajamina, or Patron participants of the ritual,must keep his hands closed "like a child in the womb of its mother, ready to be reborn."The fire altar has the shape of a bird because fire,as well as Soma, were fetchedfromheaven by a bird.The priestsdo not go southif theycan help it for the southern directionis inauspicious.Certain bricksof the altar are consecrated so thatit may rain.

FritsStaal

Such simpleanswers forma small minority. They are given rarely, and only in replyto similarlysimple questions.Most questions concerningritual detail involve numerouscomplex rules, and no participant could provide an answer or elucidationwith which he would himselfbe satisfied. Outsiders and bystandersmay volunteertheir ideas about religionand philosophy - withoutreference to generally any specificquestion.In mostcases suchpeopleare Hindus who do not knowanything about Vedic ritual.There is only one answerwhichthe best and mostreliableamongthe ritualists themselves give consistently and withmore than average frequency:we act accordingto the rules because this is our tradition(parampara). The effectivepart of the answer seems to be: look and listen,these are our activities!To perritualsare to a large extent like dance, of which formingritualists, Isadora Duncan said: "If I could tell you what it meanttherewould be no point in d(lancing it." Ritual, then, is primarilyactivity.It is an activitygoverned by rules.The important thingis whatyou do, not whatyou think, expllicit believeor say. In India thishas becomea basic feature of all religion, so that we should refer,not to the faithfulor orthodox,but to the orthoprax (from Greek orthos,"right" and praxis, "action"). It is preciselythis feature which is least understoodby English-writing Indian authorssuch as V. S. Naipaul and N. C. Chaudhuri, who have takenon theroleof explainingIndia to Westernintelligentsia. recently
II

If we wish to know the meaningor theoryof ritual,we shouldnot confineourselvesto practisingritualists;we have learned,after all, that it does not pay to ask elephantsabout zoology,or artistsabout the theoryof art. Before asking anyone else, however,let us take a look at what the Indian traditionitselfhas to offer. Since in India ritual has always been a favoritetopic for speculation,there is an abundanceof material.Even prior to speculationwe find suggestive ideas. In the earliestVedic literature, rituals,along with metresand are used by gods and demonsto fightand conquereach other, chants, and sometimes to createworlds.Even when the aims are not explicit, gods and demonsare frequently depictedas engaged in ritual.Commentaries someprovideritualswitha greatvarietyof interpretations, times inconsistent with each other.

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

In due course specificritescame to be prescribed to fulfilspecific desires: for health,power, offspring, heaven, and the like. victory, The list of wishes and desires is not so very different fromthat of not exclusivelyspiritual, as some modern modernman. It is certainly visionarieshave claimed.But this trend recededagain into the backof the ritual,we witness a ground. With increasingsystematization codification of two kinds of rites: the or domesticrites,which g.rhya are "rites de passage," life-cyclerites or sacraments, accompanying such events as birth,initiation, marriageand death; and the drauta rites.There are several general rites,"rites solennels,"or traditional and formal differences betweenthesetwo kindsof ritual.For example, the traditional ritesrequirethreefirealtarsand the servicesof several priests,whereasthe domesticritesrequireonly one fire (the domestic of the fire) and one priest (the domesticpriest). While the function domesticritesappears to be fairlystraightforward, the significance of the traditionalrites is not obvious. The traditionalritual, with its exhibitsthe unhampered of ritual myriadramifications, development It is thereforemore important construction and creativity. for the of ritualthan the domesticrites.The latter,by themunderstanding selves, mightseem to be amenableto explanationsalong the lines of, e.g., Van Gennep's Rites de passage (1909). But since such explanations are clearlyinapplicableto the traditonal rites,and domesticand traditional ritesare partlysimilarin structure, it followsthatall such theories are inappropriate. There are, moreover,traditionalrituals whichlast a thousandyears,whichshows thatsome of the riteswere Such theoretical constructs purelytheoretical. (which the grammarian to the infinite uses of language) should not be Patafijali compared brushedaside, as was done by Hillebrandt, who referred in this con2 On the contrary, nection,to "mythand fantasy"of the ritualists. for the theory of ritualas are concrete ceremotheyare as important nies. Many riteshave in factan intermediate status.The Agnicayana, which was performed in 1975, is a traditional ritualwhich seems to have been always "real", thoughsome of its extensions,which the textsdescribe,smackof theory. The sitras of the late Vedic periodoffer severaldefinitions ,drauta of ritual.One which is often quoted characterizes it as comprising
1897, page 158.

2 A. Hillebrandt, Ritual-Literatur, Vedische Opfer und Zauber, Strassburg

Frits Staal

three things: dravya, "the substance (which is used in oblations)"; devata, "the deity (to which oblations are offered)"; and tyagd, "renunciation of theritualacts)". The tyagJ is a formula (of thefruits of each act of oblation. pronounced by the Patron at the culmination When theofficiating priest,on behalfof the Patron,makesthe oblation into the fire for one of the gods, for example Agni, the Patron says:
"thisis for Agni,not forme" (agnayeidam na mama).

At this point a contradiction begins to appear, which becomes inin the ritualistic of the Mimimsa. The explicit creasingly philosophy reason for performing a specificritualis statedto be the desire for a particularfruitor effect.The stockexample of the Mimamsa is:
"he who desiresheavenshall sacrifice withthe Agniilomaritual"(agniStomenasvargakamo yajeta).

But this fruit is renouncedwhenever the Patron utters his tydga The effect, is not obtained. formulaof renunciation. therefore, The resultingpictureis furthercomplicatedby another apparent The ritesare subdividedinto two classes: "obligatory," contradiction. Unlike the Agnicayana,which is (nitya) and "optional" (kdamnya). the a is rite: Agnistoma nitya everybrahmanhas the dutyto kamya, performit. So here is a ritualwhichappears to be optional,since it is confinedto those who desire heaven (nobody's duty); but which is also not optional,because it is a prescribed duty; and which moreover in the final resortdoes not bear any fruitbecause its fruitsare abandoned. The texts reflect such contradictions. The Mimamsa basic manualof the Mimamsa,lays dlownthatthe riteslead to Sfitra, happiness,but the subcommentary "Straight Spotless" (R.juvimala) observesthatthis does not apply to obligatory acts. The Mimamsa philosophers faced anotherdifficulty. When a ritual is completed, no fruitis seen. The Yajamana, on whose performance behalf the rites have been performed, dloes not raise up and go to heaven. Ratherthe opposite: he returns home and is, as the textsput it, the same as he was before. In particular,he must continue to the morning and evening fire rites (agnihotra) for the rest perform of his life. The Mimimsa concluded, thatthe fruitof quite logically, - unseen. It will become apparent ritual activityis - temporarily An elaboratetheory was devised to show only later,e.g., afterdleath.

TheMeaninglessness of Ritual

of karman, thatthis is in accordancewiththe mechanism accordingto which every cause has an effect.A special logical theorem,called was inventedin supportof this theory.The followersof arthapatti, of the the were criticized by others (e.g., the philosophers Mimams. for unseen effects. For Advaita such whatever Vedinta) postulating our contemporary fads may suggest- in India, the unseenis resorted to only under duress. What the in fact ended up teaching Mimams. is thatthe ritualshave to be performed for theirown sake. The notion of tyaga, "renunciation," has attained an important position in Hinduism throughthe teachingsof the Bhagavad GitA. Here Sri Krsna advocatesas thehighest goal of lifea modeof activity, in whichacts are performed as usual, but the fruit(phala) of action (karman) is always renounced(karma-phala-tyaga). III but is does not offerssuggestivespeculations The Indian tradition seem to come up with a single consistent theoryof ritual.The most is perhaps the term karman itself: Indian contribution interesting used for ritual and similarlypure or ideal originallyand primarily it comes by extensionto denote any kind of humanactivity. activity, Now let us see what modernscholarshave to offer.For a long time This idea to believe that rites re-enactmyths. it has been fashionable of the New Year, which was partlyinspiredby the Babylonianfestival is diffiof creation.But this hypothesis involvesa recitalof the myth cult to supportand createsan unsolvedproblem:why shouldanybody wish to re-enacta myth?The same difficulty applies to severalmore It social structure. ritual reflects to which recenttheories, according is true,again, that thereare some remarkable parallelswhich require explanation.But the question remains: why should social structures manner and in a very roundabout or enacted ritually, be represented at that? Such unansweredquestions,generatedby the theory, suggest of this typeare best abandoned. thattheories is that ritualsare A relatedtheory, current among anthropologists, "culturaland social values" societies,to transmit used, in preliterate to the youngergeneration. This would explain the informants' emphasis on tradition.But the assumptionis, of course, unnecessary. Not societies (it is anthropoloonly are ritualsnot confinedto preliterate to preliterate societies); but such gistswho tend to confinethemselves

FritsStaal

values (e.g., gods, myths,kinship systems) are most readily transmittedby grandmothers and through language,and there is no need for themto be transmitted again by othermeans. The only cultural values ritualstransmit are rituals. Anotherwidespreadtheoryis that ritual effectsa transition from the realmof the profaneto thatof the sacred. (Instead of "transition" we also meetwith"communication": a weakerversionof the theory.) This is very intriguing and unclear. Terms such as "transition"or "communication" do not pose too much of a problem; but "sacred" and "profane" certainly do. Either the theoryexpresses a tautology: the distinction betweenprofaneand sacred is the distinction between the statusof a person or object beforeand after a relevantritualis embarked if sacred and profanehave been defined upon; accordingly, in termsof ritual,ritual cannot be defined in termsof sacred and profane.This is circularand uninformative. On anotherinterpretation, thistheory would assumethatthe distinctionbetweensacredand profaneis alreadyestablished and knownfrom elsewhere.For example,in the realmof divinity, "sacred" mighthave been shownto be the domainof the gods, and "profane"thatof men. But a satisfactory distinction of thiskind is not easily found, especially outsidethe realmof ritual.Moreover,the termsdo not introduce anywould merelyclaim thatritualeffectsa transithingnew. The theory tion fromthe realmof men to that of the gods (or a communication between the two). As a matterof fact, the Vedic ritual offers an immediate contradiction. a transition is effectDuringtheSoma rituals, ed fromthe "Old Hall," to the "Great Altar" (mahlz(pracinavarm.Aa) is said to be the abode of men, and the latterthat vedi). The former of the gods. Thus a transition fromthe domainof men to thatof the gods is effectedwithinthe ritual. The distinction thereforecannot serve as a conceptin termsof whichthe ritualitselfmay be defined. IV to definethemeaning, Why has it provedso difficult goals and aims of ritual?Why are thereso manydifferent answersand theories, not between themselves, but of such disparate only often contradictory characterthat it is difficult to even compare themwith each other? There is one simplehypothesis whichwould accountforall thesepuzzfacts: the that ritualhas no meaning,goal or aim. ling hypothesis

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

This is precisely whatI suspectto be the case. Ritual is pureactivity, withoutmeaningor goal. Let me brieflydigress for a point of terminology.Things are eitherfor theirown sake, or for the sake of else. If I were defending the view that ritualis for somesomething it would be to between such other necessary distinguish thingelse, aim or goal. But since my view is that thingsas meaning,function, ritualis for its own sake, I shall not botherabout these differences. To say that ritualis for its own sake is to say that it is meaningless, without aim or goal, or also thatit constitutes its own aim or function, value it has goal. It does not followthatis has no value: but whatever is intrinsic value. Ritual exhibitsits character of pure activity most readilywhen it is contrasted with the applied activitiesof our ordinary, everydaylife. In ritual activity,the rules count, but not the result. In ordinary it is the other way around. In Vedic ritual,for example, an activity the fire (from important ceremonyis agnipranayana, "transporting the Old to the New Altar)." This is in facta transition fromthe abode of men to thatof the gods. But the priestsdo not firstthinkof men and then meditateon the gods. They thinkof neither, at any time. What is essentialin the ceremony is thepreciseand faultless execution, in accordancewithrules,of numerousritesand recitations. The result is important, but it has only ritualuse and can onlybe reachedin the manner.I could not come in and assist in the proprescribed ritually it ceedingsby pickingup the fire fromthe Old Altar and depositing on the New. In fact,if I did such a horrible the entireceremony thing, would be desecrated, and expiationriteswould have to be interrupted, Similar disasters would resultif anyone used the sacred performed. firefor any but a ritualpurpose,e.g., to heat waterfortea. Now contrast thiswithan ordinary I am about to transport activity. mysuitcasefrommyhouse to thebus stop,whichis about a mileaway. There are no rules I have to follow,providedI obtain the desired effect.I may put my suitcaseon a skate board. Or my brother may and thetwo of us use thisvehicleto transport appear on a bicycle, my suitcase to its intendeddestination. The two kinds of activity, ritual and ordinary, can be juxtaposed withoutconflict or contradiction. After makingfire for the altar in the ritually mannerby rubbing two pieces of wood together, prescribed a priestleaves the sacred enclosureand lightsa cigarette witha match.

IO

Frits Staal

fromArthurRubinstein back home aftera Not so different, actually, on a record. But the two domainsshould concert, gramophone putting not be mixed. If a priestwould lighta cigarettefromthe sacrificial fire,it would be bad. If he would lighta cigarettefrom fire which two pieces of wood together in the ritual he had producedby rubbing he or would be considered The ritual eccentric. manner, very mad and ordinary ways of makingfireare neatlydemarcated. A distinctive feature of ordinary is thatit runs riskswhich activity ritualactivity avoids. In ordinary the activity, entireperformance may fail to have the desiredeffect.The bicycletogether withits load may fall into a canal, or the suitcase may be seized by armed robbers.In ritualactivity, the activityitselfis all that counts. Not only have we established the rules ourselves,so that we are completely in control; we are also assured of success. If one ritegoes wrong,anothertakes it place. This goes a long way to explain the curious fact thatrituals, so apparentlymeaninglessand useless, are at the same time readily engaged in. Eo ipso it explains that ritual activityhas a pleasant, If you give up desire,you willbe happy.This idea and effect. soothing for its own sake are closelyconthe notionthat ritualis performed nected and clearly foreshadowedby the Indian doctrineof tyaga, the teachingsof the Bhagavad Git, and by similarnotions in other traditions, e.g., wu-wei,"absence of (effective)action" in Taoism, or in Kant. It also accountsfor the similarity the categoricalimperative betweenritesand games,whichare equally unproductive, as Huizinga and Caillois have pointed out. But ritual is one up on most games because you cannot even lose. have detected featuresof meaninglessin Several anthropologists ritual, withoutrecognizingthat these featuresexpress its essence. L6vi-Strauss says that ritual "consists of utterances,gestures and of objects whichare independent of the interpretations manipulations whichare properto thesemodesof activity and whichresultnot from the ritual itself but from implicitmythology"(L'homme nu, 1971, page 600). If we remove the word "implicit" from this sentence the author'sideas about the complementarity (which means forsaking of mythand ritual) we approximate what I believe to be the correct Van to came the idea that ritualis meaningless. close theory. Gennep After completing his Rites de passage, he noted that marriageceremonies,in many societies,include an aspersion rite which he inter-

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

II

rite. But identicalaspersionritesare employed, pretedas a fecundity in the same and in different when a slave is acquired,when societies, a new ambassadorarrivesin town,to make rain or to expel someone. Like Indian commentators, Van Gennepgave different interpretations to each of these rites.He concluded:"the aspersionritedoes not have but it is meanany personalor basic meaningin the stateof isolation, The meaningfulif seen as a component partof a particular ceremony. the ing of the rite can, consequently, only be found by determining 3 relationit has with the other elementsof the whole ceremony." Aspersion rites are not confinedto humans.In his Sather lectures at Berkeley,Walter Burkertdealt with the ritualpouringof liquids for markinga territory and observed that this is quite commonin mammals: "we all know the dog's behaviorat the stone." - In the of our conceptsand theoriesof ritualit it only a small development step from"changingmeaning"to: "no intrinsic meaning"and ,,structuralmeaning,"and fromthereto: "no meaning." If ritualis useless this does not implythat it may not have useful side-effects. It is obvious,for example,that ritualcreates a bond between the participants, reinforcessolidarity, boosts morale and cona link with the ancestors.So do many otherinstitutions stitutes and customs. Such side-effects cannot be used to explain the origin of ritual,thoughtheymay help to explain its preservation. They explain is recognized, why ritualsare preservedthoughtheirmeaninglessness like the Jewishritualof the Red Heifer whichbaffledeven Solomon and which was consideredthe classic example of a divine command for whichno rationalexplanationcan be adduced. These side-effects fail to explain the most curious fact about ritual preservation:ritualsare always guarded jealously and with extreme conservatism. This is directly explained by the theorythat ritualhas no meaning.A useful institution is open; it may undergo change, because effortsare made to renderit more (or less) useful. A useless institution is closed; it is not understood and therefore can only be abandonedor preserved.There are parallelsto this situationfrom
3 "De la mdthode a suivredans l'4tudedes rites et des mythes," Revue de l'universitkde Bruxelles, 1911, pages 505-23; English translationin J. Waarden1973, I, page 299.

burg (ed.), Classical Approachesto the Study of Religion,The Hague-Paris

12

Frits Staal

outside the realmof ritual. In India, duringthe last 3000 years,the Vedic language gave way to classical Sanskrit which was in due course replacedby Middle and Modern Indo-Aryan languages.During without all these changes the Vedic mantraswere orally transmitted Languages any change. Why? Because theyhad become meaningless. and constantly change because they express meaning,are functional can be rememnot sounds only they change; do used. Meaningless beredor forgotten. betweenritualand neurosis. to similarities Freud has drawnattention whichpervadesritualhas led severalanthropologists The obsessiveness to emphasizethe emotionsand anxiety which sometimesaccompany and whichtheyclaim underlieit. In L'homme nu, Levi-Strauss ritual, whichthey fear that reality, has located such anxietyin the ritualists' cannotbe put together have cut up ritually, again. But it is apparent that the obsessivenessof ritual is also an immediateconsequenceof its meaninglessness. Nothingis more conduciveto uneasinessthan to be entrappedin absurdity.If I detecta mistakein cooking or calthe reason.But if I have I perceivethe resultand understand culating, I don'tnoticeany difference and don't see any made a ritualmistake, I made a mistake reason.I am not even sure whether or not,and there it. It is like being in a foreignculturewhere is no way to determine one has made a faux strangethingshappen and it is not clear whether of The pas. Agnicayana performance 1975 was followedby a long seriesof expiationrites,for mistakes thatmighthave been committed. Our anxietyis greatest when we don't know why we are anxious. of meanings attachThe meaninglessness of ritualexplainsthevariety Ideal activity cannotfail to resemble ed to it. It could notbe otherwise. actual activity.Therefore rituals resemble other things, including features of myth and social structure.However, though a ritual non-ritual this does not activity may resemblea meaningful activity, This can be seen in the realm implythatit mustitselfbe meaningful. of animal ritualization, as well as in the human domain. Among anihas changed. oftenimpliesthatthegoal of an activity mals,ritualization modesof actionwhichoriginally had Many ritualdisplaysincorporate a different Such ritual displaysmay acquire function, e.g., fighting. a new function:they lead to copulationbecause they are sexually for example. Some of the same ritualdisplays,however, stimulating, are post-nuptial or post-reproductive, and therefore not clearly func-

TheMeaninglessness of Ritual

13

tional. Biologists find them puzzling (e.g., Huxley4). Human ritualization often follows animal ritualization rather simulated or real, is still sexuallystimulating closely.Fighting, among humans.But typicalhuman formsof ritualization seem in general to dissolvemeaning,not replace it. One of the earliestritualsoriginated in connection withthe use of fire.During mostof its existence,mankind did not know how to use it. Subsequently, more than 250,ooo years ago, man learnedthe use of fire; but he could not make it. So fire was collectedfromnaturalconflagrations and was carefully kept and carried around. Elaborate techniqueswere devised for the preservationof fire. Finally, more than 50,00ooo years ago, man learned how to make fire.At this pointritualization and the cultof fire came into being. For insteadof relying on his art of makingfire,and producingit wheneverhe needed it (which is easy at least duringa dry season or in a dry climate), man continuedto carry fire around. A distinction was made betweensuch "eternal" fire and the "new" fire which could now be made-a distinction we have since abandoned as irrational. To ancientman, and in several existingsocieties,fires have retainedindividuality. They should not be mixed. Fires have to be extinguished, or newlymade,at set timesby ritualexperts.Alongof "eternal" fire reflectsfossilized side, the continuedpreservation habitswhichhad lasted some 2oo00,000ooo years. A more recentexample comes fromthe Agnicayana. 5 During the of when fire is from the Old ceremony agnipranayana, transported to the New Altar,one of the priestsengages in a long recitation. The recitation is of an ancient battlehymn,the Apratiratha or "Song to the Irresistible Warrior" (TaittiriyaSamhita 4.6.4, cf. Rgveda o10.103 and 6.75). Indra is invokedas a victorious warrioror hero, "fond of disturber of peoples",whowiththehelpof his arrows, chariots slaughter, and troups, destroysthe enemies. When the priest recites: "Comrades, followin Indra's footsteps !", he sounds less like an officiating than like a leader or a commander-in-chief. And what is priest gang ? theoriginof all of this At an earlierperiod,the Vedic Aryans fought theirway into the Indian subcontinent, movingfromwest to east and
4 J. Huxley (ed.), "A Discussionon Ritualization of Behavior in Animals and Man," PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London, i966, Indo-Iranian Journal 5 Cf. J. C. Heesterman, 6, "Vritya and Sacrifice," pages 34-36.
Series B, No. 772, Vol. 251, page 254.
1962,

14

Frits Staal

fire. In the agnipranayana rite,fire is stillcarriedfromwest carrying the ancient raids of their to east. But the priestsare not celebrating of the of whichtheyneed not even be aware. The function ancestors, hymnhas not changed.It has become ritual,i.e., disappeared. of the meaninglessness Can the hypothesis of ritual be formulated in termsof evolution or development? Necessarilyso, but we have to especiallyin Gerspeculateback to the origin of man. Philosophers, of as a characteristic many, have made much of self-consciousness man,but we are rarelytold what thismeans. I thinkthatman became as an agent. Like manyotheranimals,he aware of himselfprimarily to a was already aware of the outsideworld and could communicate limitedextent with other membersof the species (which does not imply that he possessed language). Abandoning a sense of being pushed around,man made the discoverythat he affectedthe outside world by engaging in activity-a pursuit wrought with risk and danger. So he createda world of ritualor ideal activity, intrinsically successful and free from such contingencies.It expressed man's awarenessof himself, and paved the way for theory and construction with language,as we shall see. Much later,when ritualwas contrasted became patent and ordinary,everydayactivity,its meaninglessness various rationalizationsand explanations were constructed.Ritual became deeply involved with religion,which always stands in need of the mysterious and unexplained.Rites were attachedto all importantevents.In the courseof timerituals,insteadof remaining useless and pure, became useful and meritorious. Throughoutthe historyof man's speculationon ritual we find of its originalfunction as perfect inklings activity. Justas the Indians mused about s'rauta rituals, the Chinese theorized about li, which means: rites,ceremonies, rules of good mannersand properconduct, The Confucianphilosopher etiquette. Hsiin Tzii (third century B.C.) explainedthe originof the li as follows:
Man at birthhas desires.When thesedesiresare not satisfied, he cannot theirsatisfaction. When thisseekingfor satisfaction remain without seeking measureor limit,therecan only be contention. When thereis is without will therewill be disorder;when thereis disorder, everything contention, and so theyestablished The early kings hated this disorder, be destroyed. of justiceso as to set limits to thisconfusion, to satisfy the li and standards in orderthatdesires to thissatisfaction, and give opportunity men's desires, nor things be used to the breaking shouldnot be stretched pointby things,

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

15

up by desires; that both these two should mutually supportone another and so continue to exist. This is how the li originated.6

V Enough of generalities.If ritual consists in the precise execution of rules,it mustbe possible to know what its rules are. The rules of the drauta ritualhave been formulated with great care in the Srauta and made Sanskrit scholars, foremostamong accessible by satras, them Willem Caland. Searching for the best literature outside the Vedic, one soon finds out that there is no literatureat all. LeviStrauss, in L'homme nu (pages 601-603), distinguishes two basic ritual operations: "morcellement" (dismemberment, fragmentation)

and repetition.But he offers no actual rules. Hubert and Mauss showed littlemore than that riteshave a beginning, a middleand an
end. Scholars and students of ritual seem to lag behind their colleagues

who studythe rules of measurement, or language,and who counting have for milleniabeen familiar withsomeof the ruleswhichobtainin their respectivedomains. Among studentsof ritual- whetherrelior psychologically giously, anthropologically inspired - we mostly meet with generalities.The reason for this neglect is rooted in the natureof ritualitself: if a thingis useless, it is not taken seriously. Thus we do not possess muchin the way of a scienceof ritual,even amenable to precise investigation, not thoughthe subject is certainly unlikephysics, mathematics or grammar. Even at this earlystage of pre-scientific in whichwe find groping, ritualrules. I shall give a ourselves,it is not impossibleto formulate few examples from Vedic ritual. This will necessarilyinvolve some detail (for more, see Staal, forthcoming 7). We must start with the observationthat the drauta rituals constitute a hierarchy.Four of them,for example,whichI shall referto by capital letters, are listed in the following order: D: P: A. C: "Full and New Moon ceremonies" "Animal Sacrifice" (padubandha) (dariaptirn.amasa) "Praise of Agni" (agnistoma,paradigmof the Soma rituals) "Piling of Agni" (agnicayana).

7 "Ritual Syntax,"Sanskritand Indian Studies. Essays in Honor of Daniel H. H. Ingalls; "Ritual Structure," Agni. The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar, volumeII.

ton 1952, I, page 297.

6 Fung Yu-lan,A Historyof Chinese Philosophy, transl.Derk Bodde,Prince-

16

FritsStatl

A This sequence is not arbitrary.There is increasingcomplexity. the in to a later ritual in is perform general only eligible person the earlier ones. Each later sequence, if he has already performed one or more occurritual presupposesthe formerand incorporates rituals.Sometimestheseembedrencesof one or more of the former ded rituals are abbreviated.In general, they undergo modifications. We find the followingembeddings, among others: In P, performances of D are embeddedwhen a cake of eightpotsherdsis offeredto Agni and when a cake of eleven potsherds is offeredto Agni-Visnu; in A are embedded: two performances of P (for Agni-Soma and of D (called for Pressing Soma) and several performances Consecration, Going Forth,Final Bath, Conclusionand Deparof D embeddedin P); ture,etc.,not to mentionperformances in C, a performance of P and numerof A, fourteen performances ous performances of D, some already embeddedin A and P, are embedded. but it may serve to illusis by no means complete, This enumeration structure. tratethe "embedding"featureof the underlying which rituals undergo when they are Now for the modifications in different contexts.First of all, the embedded, and, more generally, on occasions are dedicatedare often rites different deities to which at least in the names whichoccur whichinducesdifferences different, in many of the recitations. Even within D itself,one of the main oblationsis for Agni-Soma at full moon,but for Indra-Agniat new animals deities to which the different moon. Similarly,the different in performances in recitation. of P are dedicated,induce differences thereare numerousmore complex But apart fromthese substitutions whichare inducedby embedding. I shall give one simple modifications of D, thereare fifteen example.In the regularperformance samidheni are put on the fire.But at verses,recitedwhen the twigsof firewood the performance of D whichis embeddedin P when a cake on eleven is offered to Agni-Visnu, there are seventeen samidheni potsherds verses. Such examplescan be multiplied almostindefinitely. it Though all these rituals involve embeddingsand modifications, in termsof thesefor does not followthatthereis a unique description each particular ritual.For example,C may be analyseddifferently as

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

17

an Atiritra,viz., a modification of A, in which the construction of the New Altar is modified.Such an alternative would necesanalysis sitatea different structural in the present analysis; what is important contextis only that it would involve embeddings and modifications. In orderto get an inkling we have of the syntaxof thesestructures, had to enter into some complexity even thoughI have made several In order to explicate the rules, I shall have to simsimplifications. and construct a model of a ritual- a more formal plifydifferently to representation corresponding what Hubert and Mauss called a "schemeabstraitdu sacrifice."In order to make this precise,a series of artificialassumptionswill be made, definingD, P and A. The reason for these artificialassumptions is merelythat and definitions constitute a model which exhibits structures and rules they specific of the ritual. This model is similar with respectto these structures to the reallyexistingrituals, but is muchless elaboratethanthe latter. What is important is that the existingritualscan be analysed in the same manneras the model with regardto the structures in whichwe are here interested. Let us assume thata ritualconsistsof smallerunits,which I shall call rites.The ritesof ritual"D" will be written as "d," thoseof "P" as "p," etc. Now let us make morespecificassumptions. Let D consist of threerites,dl, d2 and d3. I shall writethisas a rule: D 4 dl d2 d3. This may be illustrated as in Figure I: D
(I)

d1 d2 d3 Ritual P involvesseveral performances of D. Let us assume: P pl D p2 Dp3 P4.

(2)

A involvesperformances of P, as well as of D directly, Similarly, e.g.: A -D a, a2 PD as a4. (3)

18

FritsStacal A

A representation of (3) is given in Figure 2: of the structure

D
dl d2 d3

at
P

2a
D
P2

P
D d d2d3 P3 P4
di

D
d2 d3

a3

a4

dl d2 da

This picturedoes not correspondto any existingritual. However, it one of themain features of ritualstructure, which expresses,precisely, I have referred to as embedding. We have already met with a second structure:rituals which are embeddedundergo modification. We may introducethe example I gave into our model by assumingthat in ritual D, the firstrite,dl, the recitation of fifteensamidheniverses. Let us further represents assume that in the second occurrenceof D in P, rite dl has to be replacedby a ritedt, in whichseventeen samidheniverses are recited. We cannot simply representthis transformation by adding an expression: (4) dl -+ df for the effectof this would be thatall occurrences of dl are replaced of d. What we mustdo is, replaceby d( only the dl by occurrences in the second occurrence of D in P. This can be done by introducing a different kindof rule whichcan be effected by means of an expression which uses a different symbolinstead of the single arrow -, for example a doublearrow the entirecon=. We have to represent in whichdl occurssince it is nototherwise figuration possibleto single out the dl we wish to singleout. This can be done as follows: P P

p1 D p2

pl

D p2

(5)

d d2 d3

d d12 d3

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

19

to any actual rule,but it expresAgain, this rule does not correspond the featureof ritualstructure ses, precisely, whichI have referred to as modification. In the forthcoming articleon "Ritual Syntax" I have shown thatthereare also othertypesof ritualrules than thosewhich exhibitembedding and modification.

IV
No linguist will have failed to observethe similarity of these ritual rules with the rules of syntax.The single arrow rules which pertain to ritualembedding to the phrase structure rules of syncorrespond tax; the double arrow rules which pertainto ritualmodification corto its transformational rules. This is not due respond correspondence to the fact that I selectedritualrules whichappear to resemblesyntacticrules. The rules of embedding and modification are in factvery basic rules of ritual,or at least of Vedic ritual. The partial similarity between ritual and syntax could mean that ritualists the rules of syntaxwhich they follow,albeit unconsciously, had internalized when they learned their native language. I am inclinedto the oppositeview: syntaxcomes fromritual.A simpleconsiderationin supportof this idea is that animals have ritual,but not considerations. language. But thereare weightier Syntax is the part of language which stands most in need of explanation. Language relates sounds to meanings,and so it must necessarilycomprisea domainof sounds (studied in phonetics and phonology)and a domain of meanings (studied in semantics). If language were rational and adapted to its purpose, sounds and meanings would be related by meansof a I-I correspondance. If thiswere trueof naturallanguages, to be universal, different naturallanguageswould assumingsemantics also standto each otherin a I-I correspondance, and translation could be effected withthehelp of dictionaries only. There would be no need for artificial languages,and logicianswould be out of business. What we do findin languageis something different. Meaningsand sounds are related to each other througha vast and complicated domain of structured rules: syntax. The transitionbetween sound and meaning is unnecessarilycomplex, roundaboutand mathematicallyabsurd. "Nobody in his rightmind would attempt to build an artificiallanguage based on phrase structure plus transformations"

20

Frits Staal

(J. A. Fodor 8). How are we to explain such apparentredundancies? It is not enoughto say, as communication theorists thatredunmight, dancies are necessaryfor communication because they decrease mistakes in reception. That assumes thatlanguageis only for the sake of whichit is not. More importantly, such redundancies, communication, to perform theiralleged function, need be random: whichcanmerely not explain syntax, a structured domainof specificrules whichin fact makes language unlogicaland inefficient. These specificrules,which are withoutrhyme or reason, must come fromelsewhere.They look like a rudiment of something between quite diferent.The similarity syntaxand ritualsuggeststhatthe originof syntaxis ritual. The ritual origin of syntax has implications not only in language but also in religion.I shall mentionthree.Ritual is repletewith language,but it is veryoftenmeaningless language.When a smallgolden image of a man is buriedunder the fire altar of the Agnicayana,the Chief Priest of the SSmaveda chants songs which contain such sounds as: k hv h~i h hvS hv hvi h phal phal phal phal phal hau hau hau hau hau bham bham... (eighteen times). Such structured sounds partakeof the syntaxof ritual,but do not relate to meaning. This applies to most mantras. Originally,lansounds were connectedwith guage was born when such structured The stateimmediately meaning. preceding languagesurvivesin religion as mantrasand magical spells: abracadabra. Unlike language, these are universal and need no translation. The abundanceof such formulas in Buddhismfacilitated its introduction into China, where theirway was paved by the sacred noises of popularTaoism. A second feature is thatmysticism is characterized by theabsence of It to a state which can be induced by language. points pre-linguistic ritual, by recitation, on mantras,or by other by silent meditation means, as I have shown in Exploring Mysticism.All these methods sound and (ritual) structure. help to eliminate meaning,
8 In: F. Smithand G. A. Miller (eds), The Genesisof Language: A Psycholinguistic Mass. I966, page 270. Approach, Cambridge,

The Meaninglessness of Ritual

21

had an inklingof the place which language occupies Wittgenstein in religionwhen he remarked:
Is speechessentialfor religion? I can verywell imagine in which a religion thereare no doctrines, and hence nothing is said. Obviously the essenceof can have nothing to do withthe factthatspeechoccurs- or rather: religion if speechdoes occur,this itselfis a component of religiousbehavior[the Germanoriginalhas: Handlung,"activity"]and not a theory.Therefore turns on whether thewordsare true,falseor nonsensical. nothing 9

whichI mentioned in passing: the Vedic gods fought and creatednot and chants. What an extraonly with ritual,but also with meters ordinarythingto do! But no, it is not. Meters and chants are like ritualin thattheyfail to express meaning, but reflect strucsyntactic ture in its pure form,hence pure activity. VII We have not come to the end of our investigation. On the contrary, we have hardly begun. What I hope to have shown is that ritual, whichhas so far been impervious to our understanding, is meaningless and also a subject amenable to serious study.Once we abandon and startworking, a firstadequate theorywill undoubtgeneralities a theorywill not only elucidate or later. Such sooner edly emerge, ritual; it will throwlight on the origins of language, religion,and perhaps man. What will a theory of ritualbe like? - Let us reflect once moreon the Agnicayana.The main altar is constructed in the shape of a bird fifthlayer whichcomes on top. The configuration of the first,third
from loo5 kiln-fired bricks, 200 each in four layers, and 205 in the

The ritual origin of syntax is connected with another curious fact,

and fifth layer is the same; and so is that of the second and fourth. The surface of each layer is 7-1/2 times a square of the Yajamina's length. The bricks are of ten different shapes. There are 136 squares, 48 oblongs of one size, and 302 of another. In addition there are 207 halves of squares, 202 halves of oblongs, and five more groups consisting of bricks arrived at by further subdivision of the former shapes. There are ten bricks which are half as thick as all the others. All the bricks constitute furthermoreanother set of groups, each with "Notes on Talks with Wittgenstein," The Philosophical SF. Waismann, Re-

view 74, 1965, page 16.

22

FritsStaal

its own name and consecratedby particularmantras. Most bricks have to be consecratedin a specific,very roundabout order; others may be consecratedin any order, providedone general directionis maintained and the locationof the final brick is fixed. Some bricks have figures drawn on them. Others are lifted from their proper place, carriedaround the altar and put back beforetheycan be fully All of this,and muchmore,is in accordancewithnumerconsecrated. ous precise rules,for which in almost all cases no explanationwhatever is offered. Whetheror not the rules are arbitrary, they are In adhered case to. of or differences of interstrictly controversy various schools arise which establishdifferenttraditions. pretation, Unlike sects, ritual traditionsco-exist peacefully,they are mutually exclusive and there is neitherdesire, nor mechanism for conversion. This feature, too, has becomea markof Indian religions. And so we may return to thequestionwhata theory of ritualwould be like. It is unlikelythat such a theory,if at all adequate, will be There will simple,viz., more simplethan the ritualfacts themselves. be complaintsabout its myriad rules, as there have been about Chomskyand Halle's Sound Pattern of English, Euclid's Elements, and the drautasatras. A final paragraphand consolation. There mustbe readerswho are thatritual(not to mention shocked, angryor depressedat the thought religionand even language) is not only complexbut also meaningless. I am not a bit sad about it. I prefera thing, like a person,to be itself, and not referto something or somebodyelse. For all we know life itself may be meaningless.Seen from without,the life of an ant seems to be just that, a thoughtthat must have occurred to King Solomon (Proverbs 6:6). Neither ants, nor we are any the worse for it. of California Berkeley,University
FRITS STAAL