Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of The Body and The Study of Religion

Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of the Body and the Study of Religion
Author(s): Barbara A. Holdrege

Source: International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Dec., 1998), pp. 341-386
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20106613 .
Accessed: 15/07/2013 05:20
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.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Hindu
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 151.100.161.184 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:20:15 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Body
connections: Hindu discourses of the
body
and the
study
of
religion
Barbara A.
Holdrege
In the
past
decade there has been an
explosion
of interest in the
'body*
as an
analytical category
in the social sciences and
humanities,
particularly
within the
context of cultural studies. Studies of the
body
have
proliferated, representing
a
range
of
disciplinary perspectives, including philosophy, anthropology,
sociology, history, psychology, linguistics, literary theory,
art
history,
and
feminist and
gender
studies.
Despite
the
proliferation
of
scholarship
on the
body
in the human
sciences,
until
recently relatively
few studies have focused on
discourses of the
body
in
religious
traditions?on the
ways
in which the
body
has been
represented, regulated, disciplined,
ritualized, cultivated,
purified,
and
transformed in different traditions. In recent
years
a number of scholars of
religion
have
begun
to reflect
critically
on the notion of embodiment and to
examine discourses of the
body
in
particular religious
traditions.
However,
the
body
has
yet
to be
adequately
theorized from the
methodological perspective
of
the
history
of
religions.
Hindu traditions
provide
extensive, elaborate,
and multiform discourses of the
body,
and I would
suggest
that a sustained
investigation
of these discourses can
contribute in
significant ways
to the
burgeoning scholarship
on the
body
in the
study
of
religion.
I have
argued
elsewhere
(Holdrege
1999)
that the Br?hmanical
Hindu tradition in
particular
constitutes what I term an 'embodied
community,'
in that its notions of
tradition-identity
are embodied in the
particularities
of
ethnic and cultural
categories
defined in relation to a
particular people
(Indr>
Aryans),
a
particular
sacred
language
(Sanskrit),
and a
particular
land
(?ry?varta).
The
body
is
represented
in the Br?hmanical tradition
as a site of central
signifi
cance that is the vehicle for the maintenance of the
social, cosmic,
and divine
orders. The
body
is the instrument of
biological
and sociocultural
reproduction
that is to be
regulated through
ritual and social
duties,
maintained in
purity,
International Journal
of
Hindu Studies
2,
3
(December 1998):
341-86
? 1998
by
the World
Heritage
Press Inc.
342 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
sustained
through proper diet,
and
reproduced through appropriate
sexual
relations. In the
present essay
I would like to
map
out a broader terrain of Hindu
discourses of the
body.
Before
turning
to an
analysis
of these
discourses,
I will
briefly
survey
certain trends of
scholarship
on the
body
in the human sciences
that have had a
significant impact
on recent studies of the
body
in
religion.
THEORIZING THE BODY IN THE HUMAN SCIENCES
Scholars in the social sciences and humanities have theorized the
body
from
a
variety
of
disciplinary perspectives.
In
attempting
to demarcate their
respective
methodological approaches,
scholars
speak
of the
phenomenology
of the
body,
the
anthropology
of the
body,
the
sociology
of the
body,
the
biopolitics
of the
body,
the
history
of the
body, thinking through
the
body, writing
the
body,
ritualizing
the
body,
and so on.
Among
the
plethora
of
perspectives
and
theories,
three areas of
scholarship
in
particular
have influenced studies of the
body
in
religion:
the
body
in
philosophy,
the
body
in social
theory,
and the
body
in
feminist and
gender
studies.
The
body
in
philosophy:
The lived
body
and the
mindful body
The
growing importance
of the
body
in
philosophy
is
closely
tied to
critiques
of the hierarchical dichotomies fostered
by
Cartesian dualism and
objectivism:
mind/body, spirit/matter,
reason/emotion,
subject/object.
One trend of critical
analysis
stems from the
philosophical phenomenology
of Maurice Merleau
Ponty
(1962),
who
sought
to overcome the dualities of
subject/object
and mind/
body by positing
the notion of the lived
body
based on a continuum of
consciousness-body-world. Merleau-Ponty's theory
of embodiment has had a
significant impact beyond
the domain of
philosophy, particularly
in the areas of
phenomenological psychology, phenomenological anthropology,
and
phenome
nological sociology.1
Such studies tend to
emphasize
the role of the lived
body
as
the
phenomenological
basis for
experience
of the
self, world,
and
society.
A second trend of
analysis
focuses more
specifically
on a
critique
of the
mind/body dichotomy
in which the disembodied mind
reigns
over and above
the mind-less
body.
A number of recent studies have
suggested
that the
relationship
between the mind and the
body
needs
to be reevaluated and the
model of hierarchical dualism
jettisoned
for a more
integrated
model of mutual
interp?n?tration:
the
mindful body, alternatively
characterized
as the *mind-in
the-body,*
'embodied
mind,'
or
'body-in-the-mind.'2 Critiques
of the mind/
Body
connections I 343
body dichotomy
constitute an
integral
part
of studies of the
body
not
only
in
philosophy
but also in other
fields,
as will be discussed further below.3
The
body
in social
theory:
The social
body
and the
body politic
While theories concerned with the
phenomenology
of the
body emphasize
the lived
experience
of the
body-self,
social theories that seek to
develop
an
anthropology
of the
body
or
sociology
of the
body
are
generally
founded
on the
assumption
that the
body
is a
social construction rather than a
naturally given
datum. Such theories involve an
analysis
and
critique
of the discursive
practices
that constitute and inscribe the social
body
and the
body politic.
These theories
emphasize,
moreover, that the
body
has a
history,
and thus one
aspect
of the
social theorist's task is to reconstruct the
history
of the
body
and its cultural
formation.
Among
the various theoretical
perspectives
on the
body developed by
anthropologists, sociologists,
and
historians,
three
types
of
approach
are central.
The first
approach
focuses on the
body
as a
symbolic system
that
conveys
social
and cultural
meanings.
This
approach
builds
upon
the
insights
of
Mary Douglas
(1966, 1973),
whose work on
the
symbolism
of the
body emphasizes
the
dialectical relation between the
physical body
and the social
body.
A second
trend of
analysis
is concerned
primarily
with the
body
as
the locus of social
practices. Among
the theoretical bases of this
approach
are Marcel Mauss's
(1979)
conception
of
'techniques
of the
body'
and Pierre Bourdieu's
(1977,
1984)
notion of the
'socially
informed
body'
as the
principle
that
generates
and unites all
practices.
A third
approach
focuses on the
body
as a site of
sociopolitical
control on
which are inscribed relations of
power.
This
approach
builds
upon
the seminal contributions of Michel Foucault
(1973, 1979, 1980,
1988-90),
applying
and
extending
his
conception
of the
'technologies
of
power'
through
which the
body
is
regulated, disciplined,
controlled,
and inscribed.4
Following
the lead of
Foucault,
a number of social theorists have
sought
to chronicle the
history
of the
body,
its
representations,
and its modes of
construction.5 This has resulted in a
variety
of
specialized
studies focused
on
particular types
of embodiment and the discursive
practices
that contribute
to
their formation.
Among
the different
categories
of the
body singled
out for
attention
by
social theorists are
the sexual
body,
the
alimentary body,
and the
medical
body.
The sexual
body
is constituted
by
sexual norms and
practices,
including
models of sexual
difference,
rules and
techniques regulating
sexual
intercourse,
codes of sexual restraint and
decorum,
traditions of
celibacy
and
asceticism,
and
reproductive regulations
and
technologies.6
The
alimentary body
is constituted
by
food
practices
and
dietary regulations, including
taxonomies
344 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
classifying types
of food
substances,
laws
regulating
the
preparation, exchange,
and
consumption
of
food,
norms of table
fellowship
and
etiquette, practices
of
fasting
and control of food
intake,
and dietetic
management.7
The medical
body
is constituted
by
medical discourses and
practices, including
taxonomies
delineating categories
of
diseases,
classifications of human bodies in terms of
physical body types
and
pathologies,
theodicies of illness and
pain,
traditional
methods of
healing
and
medicine,
and modern medical
technologies
and
regimens.8
The
body
in
feminist
and
gender
studies: The
gendered body
The
body
is a
central focus of
analysis
and cultural
critique
in feminist and
gender
studies. Feminist
critiques
of the
'phallocentric*
discourses of Western
culture
generally
involve a
sustained
critique
of the dualisms fostered
by
these
discourses,
with
particular
attention to the
gendered
inflection of the mind/
body dichotomy.
The distinction between mind and
body, spirit
and
matter,
in
its various formulations in Western
philosophy
from Plato and Aristotle to
Descartes,
is a
hierarchical and
gendered dichotomy:
the
mind,
characterized
as
the nonmaterial abode of reason and
consciousness,
is correlated with the male
and is
relegated
to a
position
of
superiority
over the
body,
which is characterized
as the material abode of nonrational and
appetitive
functions and is correlated
with the female. Thus one
aspect
of the feminist
project
involves
challenging
the
tyranny
of male:reason
by re-visioning
the
female:body
and
ultimately
dismantling
the dualisms that sustain
asymmetrical
relations of
power.
Theories of the
body
in feminist and
gender
studies
generally
focus on the
gendered body
and its relation to the sexual
body,
with the
validity
of the sex/
gender
distinction itself a
topic
of contention.
Among
the wide
range
of
perspec
tives on the
body
in feminist and
gender
studies,
four
types
of
approaches
are of
particular significance.
One trend of
analysis,
consonant with
early
American
feminists*
emphasis
on the irreducible
reality
of women's
experience,
centers on
experiences
of the female
body, focusing
on
those
bodily experiences
that
are
unique
to
women, such
as
menstruation,
pregnancy,
childbirth, lactation,
and
menopause.
A second
approach, inspired by
French feminists Julia Kristeva
(1980, 1982,
1986),
Luce
Irigaray
(1985a, 1985b, 1993),
and H?l?ne Cixous
(1976, 1994;
Cixous and Cl?ment
1986),
focuses
on the role of discourse in
constructing
the female
body, emphasizing
that the
body
is
a text inscribed
by
the structures of
language
and
signification
and hence there is
no
experience
of the
body apart
from discourse. Cixous and
Irigaray, exponents
of ?criture
f?minine (feminine
writing), propose 'writing
the
body,' generating
new
inscrip
tions of the female
body
liberated from
'phallocentric,
discursive
practices
Body
connections I 345
and
celebrating
the
alterity
of woman's sexual difference.9 A third
approach,
represented by
British and American Marxist feminists and other
proponents
of
social
reform,
challenges
French feminists'
preoccupation
with the discourse of
woman's
body
and
emphasizes
instead the
politics
of
bodily praxis
in which the
female
body
is a site of
political struggle involving
concrete social and material
realities,
ranging
from socioeconomic
oppression
and violence
against
women
to
reproductive rights
and female
eating
disorders.10 A fourth trend of
analysis,
especially prevalent among
American
scholars,
focuses on
representations
of the
female
body
in the discourses of Western
culture?philosophy,
religion,
science
and
medicine, literature, art, film, fashion,
and so on.M
The
body
in
religion
In recent
years
a number of scholars of
religion
have
begun
to contribute
to
scholarship
on the
body
in the human sciences. This interest in discourses of the
body
is evidenced in the
increasing
number of
scholarly
forums and
publications
dedicated to sustained reflections on the
body
in
religion, including
interna
tional conferences and
seminars,
special
issues of
religious
studies
journals,
edited
collections,
review
articles,
and book series.12 The
emerging
corpus
of
scholarship
on the
body
in
religion
is a
multidisciplinary enterprise, involving
the collaborative efforts of scholars of
religion, philosophers,
anthropologists,
sociologists,
historians,
feminist
theorists,
and other scholars in the human
sciences. The
majority
of recent studies have focused
on discourses of the
body
in
traditions.13 A number of these studies
are concerned with
categories
of the
body,
discussed
earlier,
that have been theorized
by
scholars in
philosophy,
the social
sciences,
or feminist and
gender
studies: the lived
body,
the mindful
body,14
the social
body,
the
body politic,15
the sexual
body,16
the
alimentary body,17
the medical
body,18
and the
gendered body.19
While
scholarship
on the
body
in
religion
has made
significant
advances in
recent
years,
the dominant trends of
analysis
are
problematic
in two
ways.
First,
scholars of
religion
have tended to
adopt
the
categories
theorized
by
scholars in
other
disciplines,
as
noted
above,
and have
consequently
not
given
sufficient
attention to
generating analytical categories
and models that
are
grounded
in the
distinctive idioms of
religious
traditions. For
example,
in addition to
categories
such as the medical
body
and the
gendered body,
other forms of embodiment
that are of
particular significance
to
religious
traditions?such
as the divine
body20
and the ritual
body21?need
to be more
fully explored
from the methodo
logical perspective
of the
history
of
religions.
Second,
as a result of the
tendency
to
appropriate categories
from other
disciplines,
we are left with a
bewildering
profusion
of
scholarly
constructions of the
body.
While this
fragmented approach
346 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
to the
body may
be
appropriately postmodern,
such an
approach
is not
adequate
to account for the
complex integrative
frameworks and taxonomies that are
constructed
by
certain
religious
traditions to
delineate the interconnections
among
various
types
and modalities of bodies. This
integrative tendency
is
particularly
evident in Hindu discourses of the
body,
as we shall
see, which
construct multileveled taxonomies that
distinguish
hierarchies of different
types
of bodies?for
example,
the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and
the human
body?that
are
interconnected
through
a
complex
network of trans
actions mediated
by
the human
body
in various
modalities?including
what I
term the ritual
body,
the ascetic
body,
the
purity body,
the devotional
body,
and
the Tantric
body.
While the modalities of the human
body
delineated in Hindu
discourses
may
subsume certain
categories
of the
body
theorized
by
scholars,
such as
the sexual
body
and the
alimentary body,
these
categories
assume
different valences in relation to each of these more
encompassing
modalities.
HINDU DISCOURSES OF THE BODY
The
body
has been
represented, disciplined, regulated,
and cultivated from
a
variety
of
perspectives
in the discourses and
practices
of different Hindu
traditions,
including
ritual
traditions,
ascetic movements,
medical
traditions,
legal
codes,
philosophical systems,
devotional
(bhakti)
movements,
Tantric
traditions,
drama and
dance,
the science of
erotics,
and martial
arts.
Although
Hindu discourses of the
body
have assumed diverse forms,
it is nevertheless
possible
to isolate certain fundamental
postulates
that are shared
by
most of
these discourses.
1. The human
body
is a
psychophysical organism
that has both
gross
and
subtle dimensions.
In contrast to Western
philosophy's emphasis
on
the
mind/body polarity,
Hindu
discourses
generally represent
the human
body
as a
psychophysical
continuum
encompassing
both
gross
physical
constituents and subtle
psychic
faculties.22
This notion is elaborated in two
types
of
conceptions:
the doctrine of the five
sheaths
(pa?cakosa)
of the embodied
self,
and the distinction between the
gross
body (sth?lasar?ra)
and the subtle
body (lihgasartra
or
s?ksmasar?ra).
The
doctrine of the five
sheaths,
which is first formulated in the
Taittinya Upanisad
(2.1-5),
maintains that the embodied self
(sartra ?tman)
is
composed
of
multiple layers,
from the
gross,
outermost sheath constituted
by
food
(anna
Body
connections I 347
mayako?a)
to the
increasingly
subtle sheaths made of breath
(pr?namayakosa),
mind
(manomayako?a),
and consciousness
(vijn?namayakosa),
to the
subtlest,
innermost sheath
consisting
of bliss
(?nandamayakosa).
The distinction between
the
gross
body
and the subtle
body,
which also has its roots in the
Upanisads,
is elaborated in
S?mkhya philosophy
within the framework of the tattvas
(elementary principles):
the
gross
body
is constituted
by
the five
gross
elements
(mah?bh?tas),
while the subtle
body
is made
up
of the intellect
(buddhi
or
mahat), ego (ahamk?ra),
mind
(manas),
five sense
capacities (buddhlndriyai),
five action
capacities (karmendriyas),
and five subtle elements
(tanmatras).23
An alternative formulation is
proposed
in Advaita
Ved?nta,
which distin
guishes
three bodies: the
gross
body,
which is
composed
of the five
gross
elements;
the subtle
body,
which is made
up
of the
intellect, mind,
five sense
capacities,
five action
capacities,
and five vital breaths
(pronas);
and,
the causal
body (k?ranasar?ra),
which is
ignorance (avidy?, ajhana)
and is the cause of
the
gross
and subtle bodies. The Advaita
tradition, moreover, correlates the
three bodies with the five sheaths of the embodied
self,
identifying
the sheath
constituted
by
food with the
gross
body;
the sheaths made of
breath, mind,
and
consciousness with the subtle
body;
and,
the sheath
consisting
of bliss with the
causal
body.24
In these various formulations the
mind,
along
with other
psychic
faculties,
is
represented
as a
subtle form of embodiment?a subtle sheath or an
aspect
of
the subtle
body?while
the
physical body
is
represented
as a
gross
form of
embodiment. The
mind,
like the
physical body,
is a
type
of
matter,
although
it
is a more subtle form of
materiality
than the
physical body.
The
mind/body
problem
that has
preoccupied
Western
philosophy
is thus not a central concern
in Hindu
philosophical
traditions. The
principal problem
is rather the relation
ship
between the
psychophysical organism?the body-mind
continuum?and
the
Self?variously
termed
?tman, Brahman,
or
Purusa?which is
represented
as the ultimate
reality
that in its essential nature transcends all forms of
embodiment. In
S?mkhya
this
problem
is formulated in terms of the relation
ship
between
Prakrti,
primordial
matter,
and
Purusa, pure
consciousness. In
Advaita Ved?nta the
problem
is reformulated in terms of the
relationship
between the
phenomenal
world of embodied forms?which is
ultimately
deemed
to be
m?y?,
an
illusory appearance?and
Brahman
(see
Koller
1993).
Hindu
conceptions
of the subtle
body
and subtle
materiality
find their most
elaborate
expression
in Tantric
traditions, which,
drawing
on the
ontological
and
psychophysiological categories
of
S?mkhya, Yoga,
and Advaita
Ved?nta,
re-figure
the subtle
body
as a
subtle
physiology
constituted
by
a
complex
network of channels
(n?als)
and
energy
centers
(cakras)
and the
serpentine power
of the kundalint.
348 /
Barbara A.
Holdrege
2. The human
body
has a
transmigratory history,
in which the subtle
body
reincarnates in a
succession of
gross
bodies.
From the
Upanisadic period
on, the distinction between
gross
and subtle bodies
assumes
soteriological import
as an
integral part
of the doctrine of karma and
rebirth. The subtle
body
is
represented
in this context as the
transmigratory
body
that reincarnates in a
series of
gross
bodies. The character and
destiny
of an
embodied self in
any
given
lifetime is determined
by
the combined influence of
the two
bodies: the karmic
heritage
from the subtle
body,
which is the
repository
of the karmic residues accumulated from
previous
births,
and the
genetic
heritage
from the
gross
body,
which is the
repository
of the
genetic
contributions
of the current father and mother. In the
Upanisads
and later ascetic
traditions,
all
forms of
embodiment?gross
and subtle?are
represented
as a source of
bondage
because
they
bind the soul to
samsara, the endless
cycle
of birth and death.
Moksa, liberation from
samsara,
is construed as freedom from the fetters of
embodiment and realization of the essential nature of the Self
beyond
the
body
mind
complex.
3. The
body
manifests on
multiple planes
in a
hierarchy
of
encompassing
wholes: the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body.
Vedic taxonomies
posit
a
system
of inherent connections
(bandhus) among
the different orders of
reality:
the divine order
(adhidaiva),
the natural order
(adhibh?ta),
and the human order
(adhy?tma),
which includes the
psycho
physical organism
as
well as the social order. These orders of
reality
are at times
represented
as a
hierarchy
of
structurally
correlated
bodies,
nested one within the
other: the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body.
I
shall term
these bodies
integral
bodies in that each is
represented
as a
complex
whole that is inherent in the structure of
reality.
In
early
Vedic
representations
of
this fourfold
hierarchy
of
bodies,
the divine
body
is the
encompassing primor
dial
totality,
which
replicates
itself in the structures of the cosmos
body,
the
social
body,
and the human
body;
the cosmos
body
is the
body
of the
universe,
which is the differentiated manifestation of the divine
body;
the social
body
is
the
system
of social classes
(varnas),
which is inherent in the structure of the
divine
body;
and,
the human
body
is the microcosmic manifestation of the
divine
body,
which is ranked
according
to class and
gender
in the social
body.
A
system
of
homologies
is thus established between the
macrocosm,
which
includes both the divine
body
and the cosmos
body;
the
microcosm,
which is
the individual human
body; and,
the mesocosm, which is the social
body
that is
Body
connections I 349
the intermediate structure between the microcosm and the macrocosm.25 This
model
persists
in later Vedic and
post-Vedic
discourses of the
body, although,
as
will be discussed
below,
the relative
importance
of,
and
interrelationship
among,
the four bodies is
reconfigured
to accord with the
epistemological
perspective
of each discourse.
4. The human
body
assumes various modalities in order to mediate trans
actions
among
the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
and the social
body.
In Hindu traditions the human
body
is
generally represented
not as 'individual'
but as
'dividual'?to use McKim Marriott's term?that is,
a
constellation of
substances and
processes
that is connected to other bodies
through
a
complex
network of transactions.26 The human
body
is
represented
in different traditions
as
assuming
distinctive modalities?which I shall term
processual
bodies?in
order to mediate transactions
among
the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
and the
social
body. Among
the various
types
of
processual
bodies that have assumed
central
importance
in certain Vedic
or
post-Vedic
traditions,
we can
distinguish
the ritual
body,
the ascetic
body,
the
purity body,
the devotional
body,
and the
Tantric
body.
Each of these
processual
bodies is constituted
by specific practices
and
adopts
a distinctive
configuration
of transactions
with the various
integral
bodies
(see
Figure l).27
For
example,
whereas the ritual
body
is constructed
to
enliven the inherent connections
among
the four
integral
bodies,
the cultivation
of the ascetic
body
involves
minimizing
relations with all forms of embodiment
in order to attain liberation from the
bondage
of samsara.
The
following analysis
will examine how the four
integral
bodies?the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body?are represented
in relation to
particular processual
bodies in three distinct discourses of the
body
found in the Vedic Samhit?s and
Br?hmanas,
Upanisads,
and Dharmas?stras.
My analysis
will focus on the
ways
in which each
genre
of
texts, first,
recasts
the divine
body
and other
integral
bodies to accord with its
specific epistemo
logical perspective
and, second,
gives precedence
to a
particular processual body
as the
preferred
mode of
mediating
transactions
among
the various
integral
bodies. As we shall
see,
while the Vedic Samhit?s and Br?hmanas
give priority
to the ritual
body,
the
Upanisads give precedence
to the ascetic
body
and the
Dharmas?stras to the
purity body.
Samhit?s and Br?hmanas: The ritual
body
In the Vedic Samhit?s
(ca.
1500-800
BCE)
and the Br?hmanas
(ca.
900-650
BCE)
the ritual
body
is ascribed central
importance
as the
processual
body
that
Integral
Bodies
Processual Bodies
Figure
1.
Integral
Bodies and Processual Bodies
Body
connections I 351
mediates the connections
among
the fourfold
hierarchy
of
integral
bodies. The
earliest formulation of this
quadripartite
model is found in the
Rg
Veda Samhit?
(ca.
1500-1200
BCE)
in the Purusa S?kta
(10.90),
which is the locus classicus
that is
frequently
invoked in later Vedic and
post-Vedic
discourses of the
body.
The Purusa Sukta celebrates the ritual and
cosmogonie
functions of the divine
body,
which is
identified in the
hymn
as the
body
of
Purusa,
the cosmic Man
who is the
unitary
source and basis of all existence. The divine
body
of Purusa
is
represented
as the
primordial
totality
that
encompasses
and interconnects the
cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body.
The
hymn depicts
the
primordial
sacrifice
(yaj?a) by
means of which the wholeness of Purusa's
body
is
differentiated,
the
different
parts
of the divine
anthropos giving
rise to the
different
parts
of the
universe.
When
they
divided
Purusa,
into how
many parts
did
they apportion
him?
What was his mouth? What were
his arms? What were his
thighs
and feet
declared to be? His mouth became the
Br?hmana; [from]
his arms the
Ksatriya
was
made;
his
thighs
became the
Vaisya;
from his feet the Sudra was born.
The moon was born from his
mind;
from his
eye S?rya,
the sun,
was
born;
from his mouth came Indra and
Agni,
fire;
from his breath
V?yu,
wind,
was
born. From his navel arose the
midregions;
from his head heaven
originated;
from his feet came the
earth;
from his ear, the cardinal directions. Thus
they
fashioned the worlds
(Rg
Veda
10.90.11-14).28
In these verses the divine
body
is
portrayed
as coextensive with the cosmos
body:
the three
principal
sections of Purusa's
body (head, navel,
and
feet)
are
correlated with the three worlds
(heaven,
midregions,
and
earth),
while
specific
parts
of his
psychophysiology
(mouth, breath, eye,
ear, and
mind)
are correlated
with
specific components
of the natural order
(fire, wind, sun, cardinal
directions,
and
moon),
together
with their
presiding
deities
(Agni, V?yu,
and
Surya).
The
hymn
also
depicts
the
body
of Purusa as
encompassing
the social
body,
establishing homologies
between
particular parts
of his
corporeal
form?mouth,
arms,
thighs,
and feet?and
particular
social classes
(varnas)?Br?hmanas
(priests), Ksatriyas (royalty
and
warriors),
Vaisyas (merchants, agriculturalists,
and
artisans),
and S?dras
(servants
and manual
laborers).
The Br?hmanical social
order is thus
re-presented
as
part
of the natural order of
things,
inherent in the
structure of the divine
body
since
primordial
times. In this
organic
model the
social
body,
like the
body
of the divine
anthropos,
is
organized according
to
a
hierarchical division of functions in which each
part
has its own
separate
function to
perform
that is vital to the efficient
operation
of the
whole,
and
yet
some
parts inevitably perform
more 'exalted' tasks than others. The head of the
352 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
social
body?the
Br?hmana class?takes the
lead,
supplying
the
organizing
principles
of
intelligence
and
speech
that direct the activities of the other
members of the
body.
The
body
of the cosmic Man is thus
depicted
in the Purusa S?kta
as a
macrocosmic
totality,
the microcosmic
counterpart
of which is the human
body?more specifically,
the male
body.
However,
the divine
body
of Purusa
extends
beyond
the limits of both the human
body
and the cosmos
body,
for
Purusa is
portrayed
as
simultaneously
immanent and transcendent. On the
one
hand,
as the immanent
principle
that manifests
as the
universe,
the
body
of
Purusa is the
body
of the cosmos and is
represented
in the form of a cosmic
Man with circumscribed
boundaries,
possessing
a
head,
two
eyes,
two
arms,
two
feet,
and so on.
On the other
hand,
as the transcendent
reality
that is
beyond
the
cosmos, Purusa cannot be contained within boundaries and is
represented
as
a limitless
form,
possessing
'a thousand
heads,
a thousand
eyes,
a thousand
feet.' The
hymn
asserts that
only
one
quarter
of Purusa is manifested here as all
beings,
while the other three
quarters
are immortal
(Rg
Veda
10.90.1-5).
Although
the Purusa S?kta makes reference to the different
body parts
of the
divine
anthropos,
it does not describe
any
emblematic characteristics of the
physical appearance
of Purusa that
might
serve to
distinguish
his
corporeal
form
from other divine
bodies?apart
from his thousand
heads,
thousand
eyes,
and
thousand
feet,
which are at times invoked as a distinctive feature of Purusa's
form in later Vedic and
post-Vedic
texts. This lack of concrete
specificity
in
portraying
the divine
body
is characteristic of Vedic
texts,
which tend to make
formulaic allusions to
the bodies of the
gods
while
eschewing
individualized
descriptions
of their
corporeal
forms. This
tendency
is consonant with the
aniconic orientation of the Vedic
tradition,
which is characterized
by
an absence
of iconic
representations
of deities as well as of
temples
or other
permanent
shrines.29 It is
only
with the advent of
popular
bhakti traditions in
post-Vedic
'Hinduism' that we
find a shift to iconic forms of
worship,
with
temples
and
p?j?
ceremonies centered on
images
of the
gods.
In accordance with this iconic
orientation,
bhakti texts?in
striking
contrast to the minimalist
portrayals
of
Vedic texts?tend to
provide
elaborate and
particularized descriptions
of the
bodies of the
gods.
In the Purusa S?kta the divine
body
is celebrated not for its distinctive
appearance
but for its ritual and
cosmogonie
functions.
Purusa,
as the sacrificial
victim,
is identified with the sacrifice
itself,
and it is this
primordial
sacrifice
that
provides
the
prototype
for all future sacrifices. 'With the sacrifice
(yaj?a)
the
gods
sacrificed
(root
yaj)
the sacrifice
(yaj?a).
These
were the first rites
(dharmasY
(Rg
Veda
10.90.16,
cf.
10.90.6-7).
The divine
body
of Purusa is
thus celebrated as the
paradigmatic
ritual
body,
the
body
of the sacrifice itself.
Body
connections I 353
The
hymn
describes how from the ritual
body
of Purusa
emerge
certain elements
that form an
essential
part
of
subsequent
ritual
performances:
in
particular,
the
Vedic mantras?verses
(res),
sacrificial formulae
(yajusts),
and chants
(s?mans)
?and meters
(chandaszs),
which
provide
the sound
offerings
that are an
integral
aspect
of the sacrificial
ritual,
and certain
animals?horses, cattle,
goats,
and
sheep?which
are the
primary offerings
used in animal sacrifices
(Rg
Veda
10.90.9-10).
This
primordial
ritual
body,
as we have seen, has not
only
cosmogonie
but also
sociogonic functions,
for its differentiation serves as the
means of
manifesting
both the cosmos
body
and the social
body.
The divine
body
in its role as the ritual
body
manifests itself in
multiple
bodies and then mediates the connections
among
its embodiments. In later
Vedic texts the
homologies
that the Purusa S?kta establishes between the
various
parts
of the divine
body
and the
components
of the cosmos
body,
the
social
body,
and
(implicitly)
the human
body
are
brought together
in a more
systematic,
tripartite classificatory
schema that correlates the faculties of
speech
(mouth), breath,
and
eye;
the three
worlds, earth,
midregions,
and
heaven;
the
elements
fire, wind,
and
sun,
together
with their
presiding
deities,
Agni, V?yu,
and
S?rya/?ditya;
the three
higher
varnas, Br?hmanas,
Ksatriyas,
and
Vaisyas;
and,
the three
Vedas,
Rg, Yajur,
and S?ma.
In the
Taittirtya
Samhit?
(ca.
900
BCE)
the divine
body
that is celebrated as
the source of all embodied forms is the
body
of
Praj?pati,
the
supreme
creator
god,
who assumes a
role in this Samhit? tantamount to that of Purusa in the
Purusa S?kta. The divine
body
of
Praj?pati
is first and foremost a ritual
body,
for,
like
Purusa,
Praj?pati
is identified with the sacrifice.30
Praj?pati
is also
extolled as the creator of the sacrifice31 and its first
performer.
He is
depicted
as
the
primordial
seer
(rsi)
who
cognizes
certain verses
(res),
ritual
formulae,
meters,
and sacrificial rites32 and
then,
assuming
the role of the first
priest,
performs
the various sacrifices in order to
bring
forth
beings.33
Taittirtya
Samhit? 7.1.1.4-6 describes the divine
body
of
Praj?pati
as a ritual
body,
from whose
body
parts emerge
certain
aspects
of the sacrificial ritual
along
with various
components
of the cosmos
body
and the social
body.
From
his
mouth,
chest and
arms, torso,
and
feet,
respectively, Praj?pati brings
forth
certain lauds
(stomas),
chants
(s?mans),
and
meters,
as well as
particular gods,
animals,
and social classes.
Praj?pati
desired,
'May
I
reproduce.'
From his mouth he measured out the
trivrt
(nine-versed)
stoma.
Subsequently
the
deity Agni
was
brought
forth,
the
gayata
meter, the rathantara
s?man,
among
human
beings
the
Br?hmana,
among
animals the
goat.
Therefore
they
are
foremost,
for
they
were
brought
forth from the mouth. From his chest and arms he measured out the
pa?ea
354 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
dasa
(fifteen-versed)
stoma.
Subsequently
the
deity
Indra
was
brought
forth,
the tristubh
meter,
the brhat saman,
among
human
beings
the
Ksatriya,
among
animals the
sheep.
Therefore
they
are
strong,
for
they
were
brought
forth from
strength.
From his middle he measured
out the
saptadasa
(seventeen-versed)
stoma.
Subsequently
the deities the Visvadevas
were
brought
forth,
the
jagatt
meter,
the
vair?pa
s?man,
among
human
beings
the
Vaisya, among
animals the cows. Therefore
they
are to be eaten,
for
they
were
brought
forth from the
receptacle
of food. Therefore
they
are more abundant
than the
others,
for
they
were
brought
forth after the most abundant of the
deities. From his feet he measured out the ekavimsa
(twenty-one-versed)
stoma.
Subsequently
the anustubh meter was
brought
forth,
the
vair?ja
s?man,
among
human
beings
the
S?dra, among
animals the horse. Therefore
these
two,
the horse and the
S?dra,
are
dependent
on others. Therefore the
S?dra is not fit for the
sacrifice,
for he was not
brought
forth after
any
deities.
Therefore
they support
themselves
by
their
feet,
for
they
were
brought
forth
from the feet
(Taittirtya
Samhit?
7.1.1.4-6;
cf.
Jaiminlya
Br?hmana 1.68
69;
Pa?cavimsa Br?hmana 6.1.6-11
).
In this
passage
a
number of the
components
that
are
depicted
in the Purusa
S?kta as
emerging
from the sacrifice of the divine
body?s?mans,
meters,
gods,
animals,
and
varnas?are
incorporated
in a fourfold
taxonomy
that
directly
correlates these various
components
and ranks them
hierarchically.
This fourfold
set of
correspondences
is at times reformulated in later Vedic
texts as a threefold
taxonomy
that eliminates the bottom stratum in the
hierarchy
and focuses
on the
correlations between certain triads.
In the Br?hmanas reflections on the
body
are subsumed within the discourse
of
sacrifice,
and thus the ritual
body
assumes
primacy
of
place
as the
processual
body
that mediates the connections
among
the divine
body
and its
multiple
manifestations. The sacrificial discourse of the Br?hmanas is founded
upon
the
speculations
of the Purusa S?kta and in this context evidences three
principal
concerns: to establish the
identity
of Purusa with
Praj?pati,
who is celebrated
as
the
supreme god
and creator in the
Br?hmanas;
to establish the cosmic
import
of the sacrifice as the
counterpart
of the Purusa
Praj?pati;
and,
to delineate the
creative and renovative
power
of the sacrificial order
(adhiyaj?a)
as the instru
ment for
enlivening
the inherent connections
(bandhus) among
the human order
(adhy?tma),
the natural order
(adhibh?ta),
and the divine order
(adhidaiva).
As Brian Smith has
emphasized,
this
system
of bandhus is founded
on the
Vedic
principle
of 'hierarchical resemblance,'
which as a 'central
principle
of
Vedism'
(1989: 78) encapsulates
the 'ancient Indian notion that the universe was
composed
of
mutually resembling
and interconnected,
but also
hierarchically
Body
connections I 355
distinguished
and
ranked,
components'
(1994: vii).
The connections
among
the
various
components
of the universe
operate
on two axes: vertical and horizontal.
Vedic connections are of two sorts: what we
might
call vertical and horizontal
correspondences.
The former connects an immanent form and its transcendent
correlative....This
type
of connection
operates
between the elements of the
same
species
located on
different and
hierarchically
ranked
cosmological
levels. Horizontal connections link
resembling components
of.. .different
species
located within the same
cosmological plane
which share a similar
hierarchical
position
within their
respective
classes
(Smith
1989:
73).
This
system
of bandhus is elaborated in the Br?hmanas in
complex,
multi
leveled taxonomies
that,
building
on
the
classificatory
sch?mas of the
Samhit?s,
establish
homologies among
the various
categories
of existence?worlds,
gods,
time and
space,
natural elements and
forces,
animals,
plants, psychophysical
components,
social
classes,
ritual
elements,
and so on. In these taxonomies the
image
of the divine
body,
as a
composite
of
hierarchically arranged parts,
is
often invoked as an
encompassing
model that interconnects
the
hierarchically
differentiated
parts
of the cosmos
body,
the human
body,
and the social
body.34
In the Br?hmanas the
archetypal
divine
body
is the
body
of the creator
Praj?pati,
who is
explicitly
identified with Purusa35 and,
like Purusa in the
Purusa
Sukta,
is described as both immanent and transcendent,
pervading
the
entire universe36 and
yet
at the same time
extending beyond
it.37
Praj?pati
is
above all celebrated in the Br?hmanas for his role in the
primordial
sacrifice,
in
which his divine
body
is divided into
parts?either
by Praj?pati
himself
or
by
the
gods?in
order to
generate
all embodied forms. As in the
Taittirtya
Samhit?,
he is extolled as the creator of the
sacrifice,38
the first
performer
of the
sacrifice,39
and the sacrifice itself.40 The
Satapatha
Br?hmana declares:
Having given
his embodied self
(?tman)
to the
gods,
he
[Praj?pati]
then
brought
forth that
counterpart (pratim?)
of himself which is the sacrifice
(yaj?a).
Therefore
they say,
'The sacrifice is
Praj?pati,'
for he
brought
it forth
as a
counterpart
of himself
(11.1.8.3).
The notion that the sacrifice is a
counterpart
of
Praj?pati
has
important
ramifica
tions in the Br?hmanas' ritual
ideology.
Smith remarks:
The construction of
a
sacrifice,
an
ideally
continuous and
complete entity
made out of the
joining
of discrete
parts
(rites,
performers,
implements,
offerings,
etc.),
is a
reconstruction of the universe itself in the sense that the
356 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
one
supposedly reproduces?in
a
different form?the other.
They
are not
identical but
resembling
forms of
unity, sharing
the same essence but mani
festing
themselves
differently.
The sacrifice is
composed
of the
counterparts
to
the cosmic
prototypes (each
element of the ritual
being vertically
connected to
transcendent
correlatives),
and the sacrifice as a whole is the
counterpart
to the
prototype
that is
Praj?pati,
the universe. The sacrifice
operates
with
'images,'
whereas
Praj?pati's body
or self is
comprised
of the
'originals,'
but both
participate
in the same
ontological
essence
(1989: 74).
The
sacrifice,
as a
counterpart
of
Praj?pati,
connects the divine
body
with
its other
counterparts?the
cosmos
body,
the human
body,
and the social
body.
The sacrifice is
represented
in the Br?hmanas not
only
as the means
of
mediating
the connections
among
the
macrocosmic, mesocosmic,
and
microcosmic manifestations of the divine
body
but also as the means of
constituting
these
multiple
bodies. The
theurgic efficacy
of the sacrifice is
described in this context in terms of its
cosmogonie, th?ogonie, anthropogonic,
and
sociogonic
functions.
First,
the sacrifice serves as the
cosmogonie
instrument
through
which
Praj?pati generates
the cosmos
body, setting
in motion the entire
universe41 and
bringing
forth all
beings.42
The initial
generative
act of
Praj?pati
is
generally represented
in the Br?hmanas
as
resulting
in a
chaotic creation rather
than an
ordered cosmos. The sacrifice therefore serves not
only
as the instrument
of creation but also as
the instrument of rectification
by
means of which
Praj?pati
structures an ordered cosmos.
Second,
the sacrifice serves as
the
th?ogonie
instrument
through
which the divine
body
of
Praj?pati
himself,
which is
disintegrated
and
dissipated by
his creative
efforts,
is reconstituted and restored
to a state of wholeness.43
Third,
anthropogonic
instrument
through
which the defective human
being produced through
biological reproduction
is born anew out of the ritual womb and reconstituted
through
ritual labor. The Br?hmanas
emphasize
in
particular
the role of the
sacrifice in
perfecting
the embodied self
(?tman)
of the
patron
of the sacrifice
(yajam?na),
the human
counterpart
of
Praj?pati,
and
ultimately
in
ritually
constructing
for him a divine self
(daiva ?tman)
through
which he
may
ascend
to the world of heaven
(svarga loka).u Finally,
sociogonic
instrument that constructs and maintains the social
body
as a
hierarchy
of bodies differentiated
according
to class and
gender.45
The ritual
body,
as the
body
that is constituted
through
the sacrificial
ritual,
thus has
multiple significations
in the Br?hmanas' discourse of
sacrifice,
encompassing
the divine
body
that is
revitalized,
the cosmos
body
that is
renovated,
the human
body-self
that is
reconstituted,
and the social
body
that is
constructed
through
the sacrifice. The Br?hmana
priests
are ascribed a central
Body
connections I 357
role in the discourse of sacrifice?and in the discourse of
power?as
the
earthly
embodiments of
Praj?pati
who
periodically
reenact the
primordial
sacrifice as a
means of
reconstituting
and
interconnecting
the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the human
body,
and the social
body. 'Praj?pati
indeed is that sacrifice
(yaj?a)
which is
being performed
here and from which these
beings
were
produced,
and
in the same manner are
they produced
thereafter even to the
present day.'46
The
theurgic efficacy
ascribed to the sacrifice as the instrument that constructs
and interconnects the divine
body
and its
corporeal counterparts
is
particularly
evident in the
Satapatha
Br?hmana"s discussion of the
agnicayana ceremony.
The construction of the
bird-shaped
fire altar is
represented
as
the ritual construc
tion of the
body
of
Praj?pati.
The
body
of
Praj?pati, disintegrated
and exhausted
from the
process
of
creation,
is reconstituted
through
the
building
up
of the fire
altar so that the divine
body
can be offered anew to
regenerate
and sustain the
universe. The fire altar is
represented
in the
Satapatha
Br?hmana
as a concrete
material manifestation of the divine
body
in the form of a brick edifice. The five
layers
of bricks that make
up
the fire altar are
correlated,
respectively,
with those
parts
of
Praj?pati's psychophysiology
that become
immortal?mind,
speech,
breath,
eye,
and ear?while the
layers
of earth that
separate
the
layers
of bricks
are
correlated with those
parts
of the divine
body
that remain mortal?hair, skin,
flesh, bones,
and marrow
(Satapatha
Br?hmana
10.1.3.4-5).
The fire
altar,
as
the concrete
manifestation of the divine
body,
also
incorporates
the cosmos
body.
For
example,
the
first, third,
and fifth
layers
of bricks
are
homologized,
respectively,
with the three
worlds, earth,
midregions,
and heaven,
as well as
with the elements
fire, wind,
and sun,
together
with their
presiding
deities,
Agni, V?yu,
and
?ditya (Satapatha
Br?hmana
6.2.3.1-6).
The five
layers
of
bricks are
also correlated with the
categories
of time and
space?the
five seasons
and the four cardinal directions
together
with the zenith
(Satapatha
Br?hmana
6.1.2.18-19).
Finally,
the fire altar is
homologized
with the human
body,
and
in
particular
with the
body
of the
yajam?na,
whose measurements are used
as the basis for the measurements of the altar. The
image
of a
golden
man
that is
placed
at the base of the brick altar is identified with the
archetypal
Man, Purusa,
representing
both the divine
prototype, Praj?pati,
and his human
counterpart,
the
yajam?na.
The
golden
man
represents
more
specifically
the
divine form that is ritual 1
y
constituted for the
yajam?na
as the vehicle
through
which he
may
ascend to the world of heaven and become immortal
(Satapatha
Br?hmana
7.4.1.15, 7.4.2.17).47
Upanisads:
The ascetic
body
In the
Upanisads (ca.
800 BCE-200
CE)
the
epistemological
framework shifts
358 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
from the discourse of
sacrifice,
the
karmak?nda,
to the discourse of
knowledge,
the
jn?nak?nda,
and
correspondingly
the ritual
body
is
displaced by
the ascetic
body
as the
processual body
that is central to
Upanisadic
reflections on the
body.
The
metaphysical speculations
of the
Upanisads
reflect the sectional
interests of certain
forest-dwelling sages
and ascetic
groups
that
began
to define
themselves over
against
the
priestly
sacrificial tradition from the
eighth century
BCE onward. In contrast to the
priestly exponents
of the Br?hmanas' concern
with ritual action
(karman)
as a means of
regenerating
the realm of embodied
forms,
the
Upanisadic sages give priority
to
knowledge (jn?na)?in
the sense of
both intellectual
understanding
and direct
experience?of
ultimate
reality
as a
means
of
achieving
liberation
(moksa)
from the
bondage
of samsara and its
endless
cycles
of embodiment.
The
body
assumes new
valences within the context of the
Upanisads'
ontological
and
epistemol?gica!
concerns
regarding
ultimate
reality.
Thus while
discussions of the
body
in the Br?hmanas center on the
paradigmatic body
of
the creator
Praj?pati,
the
primordial
sacrifices
the
Upanisads
reframe the discus
sion in terms of the relation of the
body-mind complex
to the ultimate
reality?
generally designated
as
Brahman or
?tman?that is the source not
only
of the
phenomenal
world but also of the creator himself.
Moreover,
in
Upanisadic
reflections much of the concrete
mythological language
and
imagery
used with
reference to the
body
in the Samhit?s and Br?hmanas is
stripped away
and
replaced
with more
abstract
metaphysical terminology
and
categories.
For
example,
it is in the
Upanisads,
as discussed
earlier,
that we first find the
conception
of the five sheaths of the embodied self
as well as the distinction
between the
gross
body
and the subtle
body.
In their discursive
reshaping
of the
body,
the
Upanisads generally
ascribe
central
importance
to two
categories:
Brahman-?tman,
as the
paradigm
for the
divine
body,
and the ascetic
body,
as the
processual body
to be cultivated as a
means of
realizing
Brahman-?tman. The divine
body
is recast in relation to
Brahman-?tman?either
directly, through
references to the
body
of Brahman or
the
body
of
?tman,48
or
indirectly, through
references to the
body
of
Purusa,
who is
generally
identified as an
aspect
of Brahman-?tman.49 While in certain
passages
Purusa is associated with the transcendent
aspect
of Brahman-?tman
that is
formless,
nonchanging,
and without
parts,50
he is more often
depicted
as
the
immanent,
all-pervading aspect
of Brahman-?tman that abides within the
ever-changing
realm of embodied forms. In this
context,
as we
shall
see,
Purusa
is
frequently represented
as the inner Self
(antar?tman)
that is hidden in the
hearts of all embodied
beings.51
Aitareya
Upanisad
1.1.1-4
gives
a
cosmogonie
account of the differentiation
of the divine
body
of Purusa that recalls the account of the sacrifice of Purusa
Body
connections / 359
in the Purusa S?kta.
However,
the narrative is
reconfigured
to accord with the
metaphysical perspective
of the
Upanisads.
The account
portrays
the
Self,
?tman,
as
existing
alone in the
beginning
and as
subsequently drawing
forth
from the waters and
shaping
a
Man,
Purusa. The account
goes
on to describe the
process
of
differentiation
by
means of which the various
parts
of Purusa's
body
are
separated
out and
give
rise to the different
components
of the universe.
In the
beginning
the Self
(?tman),
one
alone,
was here. No other
being
whatsoever blinked an
eye.
He
thought
to
himself,
'Let me now
bring
forth
the worlds.' He
brought
forth these worlds....He
thought
to
himself,
'Here
then are the worlds. Let me now
bring
forth the
guardians
of the worlds.'
From those
very
waters he drew forth and
shaped
a Man
(Purusa).
He brooded
upon
him. From him who was thus brooded
upon
a mouth
was
separated
out,
like an
tgg;
from the
mouth,
speech;
from
speech, Agni,
fire. Nostrils
were
separated
out; from the
nostrils, breath;
from
breath,
V?yu,
wind.
Eyes
were
separated
out;
from the
eyes, sight;
from
sight, ?ditya,
the sun.
Ears were
separated
out;
from the
ears,
hearing;
from
hearing,
the cardinal directions.
Skin was
separated
out; from the
skin,
body
hair;
from
body
hair,
plants
and
trees. A heart was
separated
out; from the
heart, mind;
from the
mind,
the
moon. A navel was
separated
out; from the
navel,
the downward
breath;
from
the downward
breath,
death. A
generative organ
was
separated
out;
from the
generative organ, semen;
from
semen,
the waters
(Aitareya Upanisad
1.1.1
4).
In this
passage
the
incipient taxonomy
of the Purusa S?kta,
which
posited
homologies
between the various
parts
of the divine
body
of Purusa and the
components
of the cosmos
body,
is extended in a more
complex
and
systematic
classificatory
schema. As in the Purusa
S?kta,
the
body
of Purusa is
represented
as
coextensive with the cosmos
body.
The different
parts
of Purusa's
psycho
physiology, including bodily
orifices and
organs (mouth, nostrils, eyes,
ears,
navel,
generative organ, heart,
and
skin)
and their associated functions
(speech,
breath,
sight, hearing,
downward
breath,
semen, mind,
and
body hair),
are
correlated with different
components
of the natural order
(fire, wind,
sun,
cardinal
directions, death, waters, moon,
and
plants), together
with their
presiding
deities. The divine
body
thus
encompasses
the cosmos
body
as well
as,
by implication,
the human
body
that is its microcosmic
counterpart.
Apart
from
providing
a more elaborate
taxonomy,
the
Aitareya Upanisad's
cosmogonie
account
diverges
from that of the Purusa S?kta in three
significant
ways. First,
?tman is
interjected
into the narrative as the ultimate source of
creation and of Purusa himself.
Second,
the
language
of the
Upanisadic
account
360 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
is more
abstract,
and the concrete
imagery
of the sacrificial ritual is eliminated
altogether.
Third,
the social
body
is not mentioned in the account. These
points
of
divergence
are consonant with the
Upanisads'
discursive
re-figuring
of the
body,
which
generally gives precedence
to
Brahman-?tman,
as the ultimate
reality
to which the divine
body
is
assimilated,
and to the ascetic
body,
as the
processual body
that is defined in
opposition
to the ritual
body
and the social
body.
While the
Aitareya Upanisad*s
account
appears
to
distinguish
Purusa from
?tman,
in most
Upanisadic speculations
Purusa is identified
as an
aspect
of
?tman?more
specifically,
that
aspect
which abides in the heart of all
things
as
the inner Self
(antar?tman).51
The
Upanisads emphasize
Purusa's role not
only
as the
all-pervading reality
whose divine
body
is coextensive with the cosmos
body
but,
more
important,
also as the inner Self that resides within the cosmos
body.
Purusa is
represented
in this context as the
animating intelligence
of the
cosmos
body
that,
on the microcosmic
plane,
resides within the hearts of all
embodied
beings
and endows them with consciousness.
This dual role of Purusa?as the divine
body
qua
cosmos
body
and as the
inner Self of the cosmos
body?is
evident in Svet?svatara
Upanisad
3.11-21.
On the one
hand, invoking
the
language
and
imagery
of the Purusa
S?kta,
the
passage
celebrates the thousand-headed Purusa who is
'greater
than the
greatest'
and whose
body
is the
body
of the cosmos. On the other
hand,
the
passage
depicts
Purusa as the inner Self that is 'subtler than the subtlest' and that abides
in the hearts of all embodied
beings.
He who is the
face,
the
head,
and the neck of
all,
who abides in the heart of
all
beings,
and who is
all-pervading?he
is the Lord....Purusa,
the measure of
a
thumb,
is the inner Self
(antar?tman),
ever seated in the heart of
living
beings....With
a hand and foot on
every side,
with
an
eye, head,
and face
on
every side,
with
an ear on
every
side,
it stands
encompassing everything
in
the world....He is
swift,
and he
grasps yet
has
no foot
or
hand;
he sees
yet
has no
eye;
he hears
yet
has no
ear....They
call him the
great primordial
Purusa. Subtler than the
subtlest,
greater
than the
greatest
is the Self
(?tman)
that is established here in the heart of a
living being
(Svet?svatara Upanisad
3.11-20).
Purusa's
relationship
to the
body
is thus multileveled. First,
his divine
body,
with its
omnipresent
heads,
eyes,
ears, hands,
and
feet,
is
represented
as
encompassing
the
cosmos
body
in its
totality
on the macrocosmic
plane
and the
bodies of all
beings
on the microcosmic
plane.
Second,
he is
depicted
as the
Self, ?tman,
that is hidden in the hearts of these embodied
beings. Finally,
Body
connections / 361
Purusa is
portrayed
as
without
form?without
eyes,
ears, hands,
and feet?and
hence as
ultimately
that transcendent
reality
which is
beyond
all embodiment.
The last two
points
are
connected, for,
according
to
Upanisadic metaphysical
speculations,
the Self that is hidden within the
body
is itself
bodiless,
formless.
The Self is subtler than the
subtlest,
beyond
the
gross
and subtle realms of the
cosmos
body
and
beyond
the
gross
and subtle manifestations of the human
body.
The
Upanisadic sages
locate the source of
bondage
in the embodied selfs
attachment to the
body-mind complex
and
consequent
failure to
recognize
its
true
identity
as the
Self,
which in its essential nature is
unmanifest, formless,
nonchanging,
and unbounded. Deluded
by ignorance,
the embodied self identifies
itself with the
body-mind complex
and becomes bound in the endless chain of
embodiment,
sams?ra. In this context the human
body
is often ascribed
negative
valences in the
Upanisadic
discourse of
knowledge, becoming
associated with
ignorance, attachment, desire,
impurity,
vices, disease,
suffering,
and death. The
Maitri
Upanisad
asserts:
In this
foul-smelling,
unsubstantial
body,
which is an
aggregate
of
bone,
skin, muscle, marrow, flesh, semen, blood, mucus, tears, rheum, feces, urine,
wind, bile,
and
phlegm,
what
good
is the
enjoyment
of desires? In this
body,
which is afflicted with
desire, anger, greed,
delusion, fear,
despondency,
envy,
separation
from what is
desired,
union with what is not
desired,
hunger,
thirst,
old
age, death, disease, sorrow, and so
on, what
good
is the
enjoyment
of
desires?
(1.3,
cf.
3.4).
The
Upanisadic sages emphasize
that the
goal
of human
existence, moksa,
liberation,
can
only
be achieved
through overcoming
one's attachment to the
body-mind complex
and
attaining
realization of the ultimate
reality,
Brahman
?tman,
beyond
all embodied forms.
They generally
advocate, moreover, the
adoption
of an
ascetic
way
of life as the most
expedient
means to attain
realization of
Brahman-?tman. The
Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad
declares:
[The
Self]
transcends
hunger
and
thirst,
sorrow and
delusion,
old
age
and
death.
Having
known that Self
(?tman),
Br?hmanas abandon the desire for
sons, the desire for
wealth,
and the desire for worlds and undertake the
mendicant life
(bhiks?carya) (3.5.1,
cf.
4.4.22).
The ascetic mode of
life,
as
initially
formulated
by
the
forest-dwelling
Upanisadic sages
and elaborated in later
post-Vedic
ascetic traditions associated
with the mendicant renunciant
(samny?sin, parivr?jaka, pravrajita,
bhiksu,
362 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
yati, muni),53
involves the cultivation of
an ascetic
body.
In contrast to the ritual
body,
which is constituted
as a means of
enlivening
the connections
among
the
divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body,
the ascetic
body
is constituted as a means of
overcoming
attachment to all forms of
embodiment. The cultivation of the ascetic
body
involves
minimizing
trans
actions with the cosmos
body,
which is renounced
as the field of samsara and
hence the domain of
bondage.
The
ascetic,
in
seeking
to
disengage
from the
entanglements
of life in the world and to free himself from the
binding
influence
of the realm of embodied
forms,
must also abandon attachment
to the divine
body
that
encompasses
the cosmos
body.
For Brahman-?tman,
the ultimate
reality
that the ascetic seeks to
realize,
is in its essential nature formless and
beyond
all embodiment.
The construction of the ascetic
body
also involves the 'deconstruction' of the
social
body,
as Patrick Olivelle
(1995)
has
emphasized.
The ascetic
body
is
defined in direct
opposition
to the social
body
constituted
by
the Br?hmanical
norms of
dharma,
for the realm of
worldly
dharma is viewed
as
inextricably
linked to sams?ric existence. The
world-renouncing ideologies
and
practices
of
ascetic traditions are antithetical to the
world-maintaining ideologies
and
practices promulgated by
Br?hmanical authorities to
regulate
the human
body
and
perpetuate
a
social
hierarchy
of bodies ranked
according
to class and
gender.
The renunciant ideal is
predicated
on the abandonment of the
prescribed
rituals,
including
Vedic sacrifices
as
well
as domestic rites,
and
rejection
of the social
duties of varn?iramadharma delineated in the Dharmas?tras and the Dharma
s?stras. Br?hmanical householder traditions
concerning marriage
and
sexuality,
which are concerned with
regulating
the transactions of the sexual
body
as the
instrument of
procreation,
are countered
by
ascetic
practices
that renounce
householder
life,
marriage,
and
procreation altogether
and seek instead to restrain
the sexual
impulse through
the observance of
celibacy.
Br?hmanical
food
practices
and
norms,
which are
concerned with
regulating
the
alimentary body
through
a
complex system
of food transactions and
dietary
laws,
are countered
by
ascetic
disciplines
that are aimed at
minimizing
food
production
and
consumption through
such
practices
as
begging
and
fasting.
Br?hmanical
constructions of the social
body?together
with the concomitant constructions
of the ritual
body,
sexual
body,
and
alimentary body?are
thus
negated
and
supplanted by
renunciant constructions of the ascetic
body.54
Having
abandoned the accoutrements of
worldly
dharma?home, family,
sexuality,
food
production,
ritual
practices,
and social duties?the ascetic
adopts
a
regimen
of
practices designed
to
discipline
and control the individual
psycho
physiology
and overcome the fetters of the
body-mind complex
that
impede
realization of the Self. The
practices
that constitute
the ascetic
body
include
Body
connections I 363
techniques
of meditation and various
types
of mental
disciplines, breathing
exercises,
and
physical
austerities aimed at
controlling
the
mind, senses,
and
bodily appetites.
The
encompassing
term that is at times used for this
complex
of ascetic
practices
is
tapas
(literally, 'heat'),
which refers to the
spiritual
'heat' that is
generated
through
such
practices
and that burns
up ignorance
and
attachments,
leading
to the ultimate
goal
of the ascetic
path:
realization of
Brahman-?tman.55
Dharmas?stras: The
purity body
In the Dharmaa?stras
(ca.
200 BCE-600
CE)
the
body
is
re-figured
in accordance
with the Br?hmanical discourse of
dharma,
and the
purity body
is ascribed
a
central role as
the
processual
body
that mediates transactions
among
the
divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
and the social
body.
The
ideology
of
purity
serves in
particular
to
legitimate
the Br?hmanical
system
of varn?sramadharma
delineated in the
Dharmas?stras,
and thus the
purity body's
relation to the social
body
is of
paramount significance.
The
importance
of the
categories
of
purity
and
impurity
in the Hindu caste
system
has been
emphasized by
eminent
anthropologists
and
sociologists,
such as M. Srinivas
(1952),
H. Stevenson
(1954),
Henry
Orenstein
(1965, 1968, 1970),
Louis Dumont
(1970, 1980),
and
Stanley
Tambiah
(1973). Dumont,
in his classic
study
of the caste
system,
Homo hierarchicus
(1970,
1980),
maintains that the
opposition
between the
pure
and the
impure
constitutes the fundamental
ideological principle
that
undergirds
the social
hierarchy. Although,
as Dumont's critics have
argued,
the
pure/impure opposition
alone is not sufficient to account for the historical
actualities of the caste
system,56
issues of
purity
and
pollution
are nevertheless
a
central
preoccupation
in the
Dharmas?stras'
ideological representations
of the
social
hierarchy. My analysis
will focus on the
ideology
of
purity
in which
the
body
is embedded in the
Dharmas?stras,
with
particular emphasis
on the
Manusmrti
(ca.
200 BCE-200
CE).
The
Manusmrti,
which is the
only
Dharmas?stra that contains an extensive
account of
creation, mentions the divine
body
a
number of times in its
cosmogonie
narrative in Book 1. The narrative describes how the self-existent
Lord
(Bhagav?n), 'desiring
to
bring
forth various kinds of
beings
from his own
body (?artr?y (Manusmrti
1.8), generates
a
golden
egg,
from which he himself
is born as the Purusa Brahm?.
Brahm?,
who in his role as the creator
principle
is
designated
as
Praj?pati
elsewhere in the text
(Manusmrti 2.76-77, 5.28),
is
depicted
as
dividing
the
egg
into the three
worlds?earth,
midregions,
and
heavens?and
as
subsequently drawing
forth from himself certain tattvas?mind
(manas), ego (ahamk?ra),
intellect
(mahat),
the five sense
capacities,
and so on.
364 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
These
elementary principles
in turn constitute the
body
(m?rti, sartra)
of the
creator,
from which he
generates
all
beings
(Manusmrti 1.1-17).
In contrast to the Vedic
cosmogonies
discussed
earlier,
the creation account in
the Manusmrti does not
give
a
detailed
description
of the
process
of differen
tiation
through
which the divine
body
is divided into
parts
to form the various
components
of the universe. In accordance with its focus on the discourse of
dharma,
the Manusmrti is
primarily
concerned with
connecting
the divine
body
to the social
body,
and thus it is
only
in the text's accounts of the
emergence
of
the four varnas
that
we find references to
specific parts
of the divine
anthropos.
Invoking
the
imagery
of the Purusa
S?kta,
the Manusmrti declares: 'For the
sake of the welfare of the
worlds,
he
brought
forth from his
mouth,
arms,
thighs,
and feet the
Br?hmana,
the
Ksatriya,
the
Vaisya,
and the S?dra'
(1.31).
The text
interjects
the same
image again
at the conclusion of its creation
narrative,
in order to
provide
a
transition to the discourse of dharma that is its
primary
concern. 'In order to
preserve
this entire creation
he,
the
effulgent
one,
assigned separate
functions to those who
sprang
forth from his
mouth,
arms,
thighs,
and feet'
(Manusmrti 1.87).
The text
goes
on to describe the duties of
the four varnas
and concludes with extended
praise
of the Br?hmana
class,
which is born from the
purest part
of the divine
body?the
mouth?and hence is
deemed to be
preeminent among
the social classes
(Manusmrti 1.88-101).
Man is declared to be
purer
above the navel. Therefore the
purest [part]
of him
is stated
by
the Self-existent
(Svayambh?)
to be the mouth. As the Br?hmana
sprang
from the
highest part
of the
[divine] body,
as he
was
the first-born,
and
as he
preserves
the
Vedas,
he
is,
according
to
dharma,
the lord of this entire
creation. For the
Self-existent,
having performed tapas, brought
him forth
first from his own mouth in order to
convey
oblations to the
gods
and manes
and to
preserve
this uni verse....The
very
birth of a Br?hmana is an eternal
embodiment of
dharma,
for he is born for the sake of dharma and attains
realization of Brahman
(Manusmrti 1.92-98,
cf.
5.132).
The
image
of the four varnas
emerging
from the divine
body
is also invoked
elsewhere in the
Manusmrti,
where it is used to define the
Dasyus,
or non
?ryans,
as 'all those
peoples
in the world who are outside
[the community of]
those born from the
mouth, arms,
thighs,
and feet
[of
the divine
body]' (10.45).
The
image
of the divine
body
is thus used in the Manusmrti to
legitimate
the Br?hmanical
system
of social stratification and to establish
a
hierarchy
of
purity
based on a
series of successive dichotomies.
First,
the
Aryans,
as the four
varnas born from the divine
body,
are
distinguished
from the
non-Aryans,
who
are
excluded from the claim to divine
origins.
Second, among
Aryans,
the
Body
connections I 365
twice-born
Br?hmanas,
Ksatriyas,
and
Vaisyas
are
distinguished
from the once
born
??dras,
who are born from the most
impure part
of the divine
body,
the
feet.
Third, among
the twice-born
classes,
the Br?hmanas,
as the first-born who
emerge
from the
purest part
of the divine
body,
the
mouth,
are
distinguished
from the
Ksatriyas
and
Vaisyas,
who are born from less
pure portions,
the arms
and
thighs, respectively.
The
Br?hmanas,
as the
quintessential
embodiments of
purity
and of
dharma,
thus claim for themselves the status of the lords of
creation.
In the
purity
codes of the Manusmrti and other Dharmas?stras,
the
hierarchy
of
purity
is extended
beyond
the social
body
to include the cosmos
body
that is
the differentiated manifestation of the divine
body. Through
the taxonomic
enterprise
the cosmos
body
is divided into a
variety
of distinct
categories
of
bodies?gods,
humans, animals,
plants,
minerals,
and so on?and each of these
categories
is further subdivided into a series of classes ranked
according
to a
scale of
purity
and
impurity.
In accordance with this scale,
some classes of
natural
phenomena
are deemed to be
inherently pure,
while others
are
categorized
as
intrinsically polluting.
For
example,
certain animals,
such
as the
cow,
are
ascribed
a
high degree
of
purity
(Manusmrti 5.133),
while other
animals,
such
as the
dog, pig,
and
cock,
are held to be
impure
(3.239).
Metals
are
similarly
classified
according
to their relative
purity,
with
gold
ranked
as
purer
than silver
and
copper. Among
natural
fibers,
silk is ranked
as
purer
than cotton. In these
taxonomies certain
organic
substances and
processes
arc
especially
associated
with
impurities,
and in this context events such
as birth and death that are
integral
to embodied existence are
regarded
as
particularly polluting.57
At the
other end of the
scale,
certain elements and substances
are ascribed
special
purificatory potency?in particular,
water, earth, fire, wind,
the sun,
and the
five
products
of the cow
(milk, ghl,
curd, urine,
and
dung)
(Manusmrti
5.105,
5.133).
The human
body,
as a
component
of the
organic
world,
is also associated
with
impurities.
The
parts
of the human
body
are themselves classified,
as we
have seen, with those
parts
above the navel?and
the mouth in
particular?
deemed to
be
pure,
while the lower
portions
of the
body
below the navel
are held to be
impure
(Manusmrti 1.92, 5.132).
Natural
bodily processes
and
functions,
such as
eating, sleeping, urinating, defecating,
sexual intercourse,
and
menstruation,
are considered
polluting
(Manusmrti
5.138, 5.145).
The
bodily
secretions associated with such
processes, including
urine, feces, semen, menses,
saliva,
phlegm,
and sweat,
are
similarly
classified
as inherent
impurities
of the
human
body.
The Manusmrti declares:
'Oily
secretions,
semen, blood,
fatty
brain
substance, urine, feces,
nasal mucus, earwax,
phlegm,
tears, rheum,
and
sweat are the twelve
impurities
of human
[bodies]' (5.135,
cf.
5.123).
366 / Barbara A.
Hoidrege
A number of the
impurities
listed in the Manusmrti"s enumeration also
appear
in the Maitri
Upanisad"s
(1.3,
cf.
3.4)
diatribe
against
the
body
that
was cited
earlier.
However,
the evaluation of the human
body
in the two
passages
is
fundamentally
different. The
passage
in the Maitri
Upanisad
forms
part
of
a
broader discussion
concerning
the
bondage
of samsara,
and in this context the
body
is denounced
as the locus not
only
of
impurities
but also of the
binding
influences of sams?ric
existence?desire, delusion,
vices such as
anger
and
envy, disease,
suffering,
and death. The
passage
in the Manusmrti,
on the other
hand,
forms
part
of an extended discussion of
purity
and
impurity,
and in this
context the
primary
concern is not to denounce the
body per
se but rather
to
prescribe purificatory procedures
that should be undertaken in order to counteract
the
impurities
that are an
intrinsic
aspect
of
corporeal
existence. Since the
human
body
is itself the locus of certain
polluting
substances,
the
purity body
is not a
given
but rather an ideal to be
approximated.
The
purity body,
its
boundaries
constantly
threatened
by
the inflow and outflow of
impurities,
must
be
continually
reconstituted
through
an elaborate
system
of
regulations
and
practices.
In contrast to the cultivation of the ascetic
body,
which involves
renouncing
the cosmos
body
and the social
body
in order to obtain liberation
from
samsara,
the construction of the
purity body
involves
highly
selective
transactions with the cosmos
body
and the social
body
in order
to
maintain the
smooth
functioning
of the social and cosmic orders. The male members of the
twice-born varnas,
in
upholding
the ritual and social duties of varn?srama
dharma,
are
enjoined
in the Dharmas?stras
to minimize
contact with
impure
persons
and
substances,
to maximize contact with
pure persons
and
substances,
and to undertake
a
regular program
of
purificatory procedures
to
mitigate
the
polluting
effects of embodied existence.
The Dharmas?stras
are
particularly
concerned with the
purity body's
relation
to the social
body,
as we saw earlier in our
analysis
of the ManusmrtVs
representations
of the divine
body.
However,
the social
body
is more
highly
differentiated than the
image
of the four
varnas
issuing
forth from the divine
body suggests.
The social
body
includes not
only
the four varnas but also
the numerous
j?tis,
or
castes,
which the Dharmas?stras claim were
generated
through
the
intermixing
of the varnas
(varnasamkara).
The
hierarchy
of
purity,
in addition to
ranking
the four varnas
according
to their relative
purity,
is
extended to include the mixed castes
(j?tis)
that have been
produced
either
through permissible
anuloma
(literally,
'with the
hair')
unions between
a man of
a
higher
varna and
a woman of a lower varna
(hypergamy)
or
through
unsanc
tioned
pratiloma (literally, 'against
the
hair')
unions between
a woman of
a
higher
varna and
a man of a lower varna
(hypogamy).
In this extended
pyrami
dal
hierarchy
the Br?hmanas maintain their
place
at the
apex,
as the
paradigmatic
Body
connections I 367
representatives
of the
purity body,
while the
large
number of 'debased'
castes
generated through
illicit
pratiloma
unions
are deemed to be of
impure origin
and
relegated
to the bottom of the
hierarchy.
Moreover,
the debased castes are
generally assigned polluting occupations
that involve constant association with
impure
substances,
such as
working
with
leather,
handling corpses,
or
slaying
animals,
and that serve to reinforce their
purported
condition of
congenital
impurity.58
Thus while all human bodies?even Br?hmana bodies?are to a certain extent
tainted
by
the
impurities
of
organic
life,
different
degrees
of natural defilement
are
ascribed to different human bodies
by
virtue of their birth in
a
particular
caste with its associated
occupation.
However,
the
purity
status of
a
caste,
as
well as of its individual
members,
is not fixed but
may
be modified
through
interactions with other castes?more
specifically through
a
complex
network of
transactions
involving
the
exchange
of women
(in
marriage),
food,
and services.
The
regulations
and
procedures
delineated in the Dharmas?stras for
structuring
the
purity body
thus include laws of
connubiality
to
regulate
the transactions
of
the sexual
body
as
well as laws of
commensality
to
regulate
the transactions of
the
alimentary body.
The laws of
connubiality
delineate the effects of various
types
of
marriage
transactions?in
particular, endogamous, hypergamous,
and
hypogamous
unions?on a
caste's
purity
status.59 The laws of
commensality
circumscribe food transactions
among
castes,
determining
who
may
receive food
and water from
whom,
and
thereby
serve to
strengthen
the hierarchical
gradations
of
purity
that both
separate
and connect castes.60 The Br?hmanical
food
system
also includes taxonomies
classifying
foods
as
pure
or
impure;
rules
pertaining
to
the
purity
of
cooking
vessels and
utensils; and,
regulations
that rank different
methods of food
preparation
in terms of their relative resistance
to
pollution,
distinguishing
in
particular among
raw food
(most resistant),
food cooked in oil
(pakk?)
(less resistant),
and food cooked in water
(kacc?) (least resistant).61
Castes that are ascribed a
high purity
status are considered
to be more
vulnerable to
polluting
influences than lower castes and are therefore
enjoined
in
the Dharmaa?stras to follow a stricter
system
of
purificatory procedures
and
rituals.62 Tambiah comments:
The
logic
of these rules
[concerning
external
pollution]
stems from the
simple
precept
that the
higher
the
purity
status of a man the
greater
his defilement
by impurity, especially
that
stemming
from a lower level
person
or
object.
Conversely,
the
logic says
that a lower caste
person
in
so far
as he is
perma
nently
more
polluted
than a
higher
caste
person
does not
proportionately
heap
more
pollution upon
himself
through defiling
contact,
and
can return to
his status
quo
ante more
easily
than
a
superior
status
person
whose fall is
368 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
proportionately steeper
and the
purification
entailed
correspondingly
more
elaborate
(1973: 213-14).
In accordance with this
logic,
the laws of
purity
are most
stringent
for
Br?hmanas,
who
epitomize
the
purity body.
Br?hmanas are
enjoined
in the
Dharmas?stras to
guard
with constant
vigilance
the boundaries of the
purity
body, regulating
what
goes
into and out of the
body?food,
drink,
bodily
secre
tions,
and so on.
In order to
accomplish
this
goal, they
are
instructed
to
adopt
a
rigorous regimen
of
purificatory practices,
which
generally
includes
a
vegetarian
diet,
a
regular
routine of
baths, ablutions,
and
purificatory
rituals,
and avoidance
of contact with
impure persons
and substances. The laws of
connubiality,
for
example, proscribe
a
male
Br?hmana,
in the case of his first
marriage,
from
marrying
a woman of the
impure
class of
S?dras,
lest he become
an
outcaste,
degrade
the caste status of his
offspring,
and sink into hell
(Manusmrti
3.14
19).
The laws of
commensality similarly prohibit
a Br?hmana from
accepting
food from
persons
deemed to be in either
a
permanent
or a
temporary
state of
impurity, including
a
S?dra,
an
outcaste,
an
eunuch,
a
menstruating
woman,
a
woman who has
just given
birth,
a sick
person,
or a
person
with
an
impure
occupation,
such as a
washerman,
physician,
or harlot
(Manusmrti
4.205-23,
cf.
11.176, 11.181).
Even the
glance
of an
impure person
or animal is
defiling
to
the
purity body
of
a
Br?hmana. 'A c?nd?la
(outcaste),
a
pig,
a
cock,
a
dog,
a
menstruating
woman, and an eunuch
must not look at Br?hmanas when
they
eat'
(Manusmrti 3.239).63
In the Dharmas?stras a
person's
level of
purity
is determined
not
only by
his
or
her caste but also
by
such factors
as
stage
of life and
gender.
In the ideal
schema of four
stages
of life
(?sramas)
prescribed
for male members of the three
higher
varnas, the householder
(grhastha)
is ranked
as the least
pure,
followed,
in order of
increasing purity, by
the student
(brahmac?rin),
forest-dweller
(v?naprastha),
and renunciant
(samny?sin
or
yati).M
With
respect
to
gender,
significant
distinctions are made between men and women, both in terms of
their
respective
contributions in the
process
of
procreation
to the
purity
status of
the
offspring
and in terms of the relative
purity
ascribed to male and female
bodies.
First,
according
to the Dharmas?stras'
theory
of
reproduction,
the male
'seed' is more
important
than the female 'field' into which it is sown, for it is
the seed that
ultimately
determines the status and characteristics of the
offspring.
Thus
although endogamous
unions between
a man and woman of the same caste
are considered the norm, anuloma unions between
a man of a
higher
varna and
a
woman of
a
lower varna are
permitted
because the
power
of the male seed
prevails
in
determining
the status of the
offspring,
even
though
that status will
be somewhat tainted
by
the mother's less
pure
status. Pratiloma unions between
Body
connections I 369
a woman of a
higher
varna and a man of a lower varna are
prohibited
for the
same
reason, for even
though
the female field
may
be
relatively pure,
the status
of the
offspring
will be debased
by
the
polluting
influence of the male seed
(Manusmrti 9.33-40, 10.69-72, 10.5-6). Second,
although
women are at times
extolled in the Dharmas?stras for their
purity,
female bodies
are
generally
characterized as
less
pure
than male bodies because of their association with
polluting processes
such as menstruation and childbirth. Hence women are
excluded,
along
with
S?dras,
from activities that
require
a state of ritual
purity?in particular, studying
and
reciting
the Vedas and
performing
sacrificial
rituals.65
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
The model that
emerges
from our
study
of a
variety
of Hindu discourses of the
body
is both structural and transactional. The structural
aspect
of the model
delineates a multileveled
hierarchy
of
structurally
correlated bodies
corresponding
to different orders of
reality,
which I have termed
integral
bodies: the divine
body,
the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body.
The transactional
aspect
of the model delineates a
range
of
possible
transactions
among
the
integral
bodies that are mediated
by
the human
body
in various
modalities,
which I have termed
processual
bodies: the ritual
body,
the ascetic
body,
the
purity body,
the devotional
body,
the Tantric
body,
and
so on.
The earliest formulation of this
model,
as we have seen, is found in the
Purusa
S?kta,
which
represents
the divine
body
of Purusa as the
paradigmatic
ritual
body
that
encompasses
and interconnects the cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body.
This model is extended and
adapted
in the
Br?hmanas' discourse of
sacrifice,
which centers on the divine
body
of the
Purusa
Praj?pati,
the
primordial
sacrificer,
and
on the
theurgic efficacy
of the
sacrifice as the instrument that constitutes the divine
body
and its
corporeal
counterparts?the
cosmos
body,
the social
body,
and the human
body?and
then enlivens the connections
among
this fourfold
hierarchy
of bodies. In the
Upanisads
this model is
reconfigured
from the
epistemological perspective
of
the discourse of
knowledge,
which
supersedes
the discourse of sacrifice. In
accordance with the ascetic interests of the
forest-dwelling Upanisadic
sages,
this discourse
interjects
two new
emphases:
first,
the divine
body
is recast in
relation to the ultimate
reality,
Brahman-?tman, and,
second,
the ascetic
body
displaces
the ritual
body
as the
processual body
that is to be cultivated
through
minimizing
transactions with the cosmos
body
and the social
body
in order
370 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
to attain realization of Brahman-?tman
beyond
the
body-mind complex.
The
Dharmas?stras
provide
an alternative reformulation of the model that accords
with the
epistemological perspective
of the discourse of dharma. In recon
figuring
the fourfold
hierarchy
of
bodies,
the Dharmas?stras
give primary
emphasis
to the social
body,
as
evidenced, first,
in the use of the
image
of
the divine
body
to
legitimate
the Br?hmanical social
system
and, second,
in
ideological representations
of the
purity body
as the
processual body
that must
be
continually
reconstituted
through highly
selective transactions with the
cosmos
body
and the social
body.
This
model,
which
posits
a
multileveled
hierarchy
of bodies interconnected
through
a
complex
network of
transactions,
has been further extended and
reformulated in other Hindu discourses of the
body?in particular,
in construc
tions of the devotional
body
in bhakti traditions and in constructions of the
Tantric
body
in Tantric traditions.
Although
the Tantric
body
has been
explored
in several recent
studies,66
relatively
little attention
has been
given
to the
devotional
body
as a
category
of
analysis.67 My
own research on bhakti and
Tantric traditions
suggests
that an extended
analysis
of
representations
of these
processual
bodies in relation to the
hierarchy
of
integral
bodies would
prove
fruitful in
illuminating
the distinctive contributions of these discourses of the
body.
However,
such
investigations
are
beyond
the
scope
of the
present inquiry
and must be
postponed
to a further
study.
This model of
integral
and
processual
bodies,
which has been
appropriated
and
reconfigured
in a
variety
body, provides
a well
documented
example
of the
complex
hierarchical taxonomies that
religious
traditions construct to
distinguish,
rank,
and interconnect different
types
of
bodies.
Moreover,
a
number of the
specific types
and modalities of bodies that
are delineated in Hindu discourses are also found in other
religious
traditions,
although
the relative
importance
ascribed to the various
bodies,
as well as
the
pattern
of relations
among them,
is of course different from tradition to
tradition. Hence Hindu constructions of embodiment
may
serve to illuminate
comparable
constructions in other traditions.
An
analysis
body
can thus contribute in
significant
ways
to our
ongoing investigations
of the
body
in the
history
of
religions,
as
well as in the human sciences
generally, by bringing
to
light
new
categories
and
models that are
grounded
in the idioms of
religious
traditions themselves. In
contrast to the
fragmented approach
that has tended to dominate
our
scholarly
inquiries,
in which scholars in different
disciplines posit
a
variety
of different
categories
of the
body
that are
discussed in isolation from one
another,
Hindu
traditions
exemplify
the more
systemic approach
of
religious
traditions,
which
tend to construct elaborate
integrative
frameworks that
emphasize
the connec
Body
connections I 371
tions and interactions
among
different
types
of bodies. As we have
seen,
certain
categories
that have been theorized
by
scholars,
such as the sexual
body
and the
alimentary body,
are
ascribed
entirely
different valences when
they
are
incorpo
rated in the more
encompassing
modalities delineated
by
Hindu
discourses,
such
as the ascetic
body
and the
purity body.
These
processual
bodies themselves
assume
distinctive valences when
they
are
incorporated
in an even more encom
passing interpretive
framework of
hierarchically
differentiated
integral
bodies.
Hindu constructions of embodiment thus
posit
a multileveled network of
body
connections.
Notes
1.
Among
works on
the
phenomenology
of the
body,
see, for
example,
Zaner
1964,
1981;
Schr?g
1979;
Levin
1985;
Jackson
1983;
O'Neill 1989;
Csordas 1990.
2.
See,
for
example,
Kasulis
1993; Kasulis, with Ames and
Dissanayake
1993;
Midgley
1997. See also Johnson
1987;
Lakoff 1987, who
challenge
the
mind/body
dichotomy
in the context of broader
critiques
of
objectivism.
For current debates
among
contemporary philosophers concerning
the
relationship
between mind and
body,
see Warner and Szubka 1994.
3.
See,
for
example, Scheper-Hughes
and Lock
1987;
Strathern 1996. As discussed
below,
critiques
of
mind/body
dualism are central to
many
feminist theories of the
body.
4. For discussions of
perspectives
on the
body
in social
theory, along
with
references to relevant
works,
see Turner 1996b, 1991a;
Dissanayake
1993;
McGuire
1990;
Frank
1990;
Freund 1988.
Among
works concerned more
specifically
with
the
anthropology
of the
body,
see Benthall and Polhemus
1975;
Blacking
1977;
Polhemus
1978;
Jackson
1983;
Scheper-Hughes
and Lock
1987;
Csordas
1990;
Strathern
1996;
Asad 1997.
Among
works concerned with the
sociology
of the
body,
see Freund
1982;
Armstrong 1983;
O'Neill
1985, 1989;
Scarry
1985; Featherstone,
Hepworth,
and Turner
1991;
Shilling
1993; Synnott
1993;
Scott and
Morgan
1993;
Falk
1994;
Turner 1996a.
5. The most ambitious work concerned with the
history
of the
body
is the three
volume
Fragments for
a
history of
the human
body\
edited
by
Feher,
with Naddaff
and Tazi
(1989).
The third volume includes an extensive annotated
bibliography by
Duden
(1989).
6.
See,
for
example,
Foucault
1988-90;
Gallagher
and
Laqueur
1987;
Rouselle
1988; Brown 1988. For reviews of these and other works concerned with the sexual
body,
see Culianu 1991:
62-63, 65-72,
1995:
2-A, 5-9;
Frank 1990: 145-48.
7.
See,
for
example, Douglas
1966:
29-57;
Elias
1978;
Bell
1985;
Bynum 1987;
Mennell
1991;
Turner
1982, 1991b,
1996a: 165-96. Bell and
Bynum
are reviewed in
Culianu 1991:
63-65, 1995: 4-5.
372 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
8.
See,
for
example,
Foucault
1973;
Armstrong
1983;
O'Neill 1985:
118-47;
Scheper-Hughes
and Lock
1987; Turner 1992. For a review of other works concerned
with the medical
body,
see Frank 1990: 134-45.
9. The notion of sexual difference has been
developed
in
a
variety
of distinctive
ways
by Anglo-American
feminists.
See,
for
example, Gallop
1988;
Butler
1990,
1993;
Grosz 1994. For critical
analyses
of debates
among Anglo-American
and
French
feminists,
see Moi
1985,
Dallery
1989.
10. As an
example
of this
approach,
see Bordo
1989,
1993.
11.
See,
for
example,
Suleiman
1986;
Michie
1987;
Martin 1987;
Gallagher
and
Laqueur 1987;
Miles
1989; Jacobus, Keller,
and Shuttleworth 1990;
Laqueur
1990;
Malti-Douglas
1991;
Bynum
1991.
12. An international conference on The
body:
A
colloquium
on
comparative
spirituality,'
held at the
University
of Lancaster in
England
in
1987,
resulted in two
publications:
a
special
issue of the
journal Religion,
The
body:
Lancaster collo
quium
on
comparative spirituality'
(1989),
and the
recently published
collection of
essays, Religion
and the
body,
edited
by Coakley (1997).
A second collection of
essays, Religious reflections
on the human
body,
edited
by
Law
(1995),
was
engen
dered
by
a
two-year
international forum on the
body
in
religion.
The Law collection
contains a
review article
by
Culianu
(1995,
cf.
1991)
that
surveys
recent
scholarship
on the
body
in Western culture. A review article
by
Sullivan
(1990),
which
appeared
in a
special
issue of
History of religions
on 'The
body' (1990),
focuses
more
specifi
cally
on recent works on the
body
that are
relevant to scholars of
religion.
See also
LaFleur's
(1998)
recent
essay
on
the
body
as a
critical term for
religious
studies.
With
respect
to book
series,
the SUNY Series,
The
Body
in
Culture,
History,
and
Religion,
edited
by Eilberg-Schwartz, published
twelve volumes in the
period
between 1992 and 1997.
13. The edited collections
by
Law
(1995)
and
Coakley
(1997)
include
essays
by specialists focusing
on
different
aspects
of the
body
in
traditions. With
respect
to recent books on the
body,
a
number of seminal studies
focus on
Christian traditions: Bell
1985;
Bynum
1987, 1991, 1995;
Brown
1988;
Camporesi
1988;
Miles 1989.
Among
recent studies of discourses of the
body
in
Jewish
traditions,
see
Eilberg-Schwartz
1992;
Boyar?n
1993. For an
analysis
of
Islamic discourses of the
body,
see
Malti-Douglas
1991. For an extended
study
of
the
body
in Aztec
culture,
see
L?pez
Austin 1988. Studies of the
body
in Asian
traditions include edited collections such as
Kasulis,
with Ames and
Dissanayake
1993 as well as works focused on
specific
traditions: South Asian
(Daniel 1984;
Griffiths
1986;
Flood
1993;
White
1996;
Wilson
1996);
Chinese
(Schipper
1993;
Zitoand Barlow
1994); and,
Japanese (Shaner 1985;
Yuasa 1987, 1993;
Nagatomo
1992).
14. A number of works have been concerned with
devaluating
the
mind/body
problem
from the
perspective
of Asian traditions.
See,
for
example,
Shaner
1985;
Griffiths
1986; Yuasa
1987, 1993;
Nagatomo
1992; Kasulis,
with Ames and
Dissanayake
1993.
Body
connections I 373
15. A number of
scholars have
emphasized
the need for
sociologists
and anthro
pologists
of
religion
to undertake extended research on the
ways
in which the
body
is
represented
and constructed in
religious
traditions.
See,
for
example,
McGuire
1990;
Simpson
1993; Ruth 1974. With
respect
to studies of the
body
as a site of
sociopolitical power
in
specific religious
traditions,
see the collection of
essays
edited
by
Zito and Barlow
(1994)
on
Chinese discourses of the
body.
16.
See,
for
example,
Rouselle
1988;
Brown
1988;
Biale
1992;
Boyar?n
1993;
White
1996; and,
the
essays
on the sexual
body
in
Eilberg-Schwartz
1992.
17.
See,
for
example,
Bell
1985;
Bynum
1987.
18.
See,
for
example,
Larson
1993;
White 1996:
19-32; and,
the
essays
on the
medical
body
in Zito and Barlow 1994.
19.
See,
for
example,
Miles
1989;
Malti-Douglas
1991;
Bynum
1991; Boyar?n
1993;
Cooey
1994; Wolfson
1995;
Wilson 1996. See also the
essays
on the
gendered body
in Law
1995;
Zito and Barlow
1994;
Eilberg-Schwartz
1992.
20.
Among
recent
studies,
see
Waghorne
and
Cutler,
with
Narayanan
1985;
Malamoud and Vernant
1986;
Hopkins 1993;
Wolfson
1995; and, the
essays
on the
divine
body
in Law
1995;
Eilberg-Schwartz
1992;
Feher 1989.
21. The central
importance
of the ritual
body
has been
emphasized
in
particular by
Bell
(1992: 94-117).
See also the
essays
on the ritual
body
in Law
1995;
Zito and
Barlow 1994.
22. For discussions of the
ways
in which Hindu theories of the
body challenge
the
mind/body dichotomy posited by
Western
philosophy,
see Koller
1993;
Staal
1993;
Larson 1993.
23. For
S?mkhya perspectives
on the
gross
and subtle
bodies,
see Larson and
Bhattacharya
1987.
24. For Advaita
perspectives
on
the three bodies and the five sheaths,
see Potter
1981. It is
important
to note that the
Ny?ya,
Vaisesika,
and
Yoga
schools of Hindu
philosophy reject
the notion of
a
subtle
body.
25.
My
use of the term 'mesocosm' follows that of Lincoln
(1986: 4).
26. See Marriott's
(1976a)
discussions of the notions of 'dividual' and 'trans
actional.1
27.
Figure
1
provides
a schematic
representation
of the
integral
bodies and
processual
bodies. The
specific configuration
of the
integral
bodies in the
figure
reflects
early
Vedic constructions of the ritual
body,
in which the divine
body
is the
encompassing totality
within which the cosmos
body,
social
body,
and human
body
are
subsumed. A
separate
figure
could be
generated
for each of the other
processual
bodies,
in which the
integral
bodies would be
reconfigured
to
highlight
the relative
importance
of,
and
changing relationships among,
the four bodies.
28. The translations of all Sanskrit
passages
are
my
own.
29. Malamoud remarks:
The India of the Vedas is...'aniconic.' To be sure, there exists neither
any
rule
nor
any
account
condemning
the manufacture of divine
images.
It remains the
374 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
case, however,
that Vedic India has left
no
vestige
whatsoever that
might
bear
witness to the
prior
existence of
sculpted
or
painted effigies....There
is no
mention whatsoever?in this enormous
agglomeration
of
hymns, prayers,
aetiological
narratives and
prescription, bearing
on the most minute details of
worship?of objects depicting
the
gods (1996: 208).
Malamoud
emphasizes
the links between Vedic aniconism and the
perspectives
on
divine
corporeality propounded
in Vedic texts. It is
important
to note that
we do
find some
evidence of aniconic?as
opposed
to
iconic?representations
in the Vedic
period,
for
example,
the
bird-shaped
fire altar in the
agnicayana ceremony, which,
as
will be discussed
below,
is understood to be a
representation
of the
body
of the
creator
Praj?pati.
30.
See,
for
example, Taittirtya
Samhit? 5.1,8.3-4.
31.
See,
for
example, Taittirtya
Samhit?
1.6.9.1, 3.3.7.1, 6.1.2.4.
32.
Taittirtya
Samhit?
5.1.8.3, 7.2.5.1, 3.3.5.2, 6.6.10.1, 7.2.4.1,
7.3.8.1.
33.
See,
for
example, Taittirtya
Samhit?
7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.4, 3.5.7.3, 7.2.5.1,
cf.
1.7.4.1,
7.2.4.1, 7.3.8.1.
Praj?pati
is also described as
distributing
the sacrifices to the
gods.
See
Taittiriya
Samhit?
1.7.3.2,
6.6.11.1.
34. For
analyses
of the taxonomies of the
Br?hmanas,
see
Holdrege
1996:
43-62;
Smith 1994.
35.
See,
for
example,
Kaus?taki Br?hmana
23.4;
Taittiriya
Br?hmana
2.2.5.3;
Satapatha
Br?hmana
6.1.1.5, 6.1.1.8, 6.1.3.1, 6.2.2.9, 7.4.1.15, 11.1.6.2;
Jaimin?ya
Br?hmana
2.47;
Jaimin?ya Upanisad
Br?hmana 1.49.3.
36.
Regarding
the
immanent nature of
Praj?pati,
Gonda remarks:
In the case of the Vedic
Praj?pati
creation is a
process
of emission and exterioriza
tion of some
being
or
object
that formed
part of,
or was hidden
in,
the creator
himself,
yet
does not
become
completely independent
of
him,
because
Praj?pati,
being
the
Totality (sar\>am),
embraces his creatures....The creator
god
is 'identical*
with, that is
immanent,
inherent
in,
his creation
(1983: 18).
The
all-pervading
nature of
Praj?pati
as the
unitary principle
of the cosmos is
expressed
in references to
Praj?pati
as 'all'
(sarvam)
or 'this all*
(idam sarvam). See,
for
example,
Kaus?taki Br?hmana
6.15, 25.12; Satapatha
Br?hmana
1.3.5.10,
4.5.7.2, 5.1.1.4, 5.1.1.6, 5.1.1.8-9, 5.1.3.11, 13.6.1.6; Jaimin?ya Upanisad
Br?hmana
1.46.2. See also Gonda
1955, 1982.
37.
See,
for
example, Satapatha
Br?hmana
4.6.1.4,
which describes
Praj?pati
as the fourth over and above the three worlds of
heaven,
midregions,
and earth.
Compare Rg
Veda
10.90.3-4,
which maintains that one
quarter
of Purusa
encompasses
all
beings,
while the other three
quarters
extend
beyond
and are
immortal.
38.
Aitareya
Br?hmana 5.32,
7.19;
Kaus?taki Br?hmana
6.10, 6.15, 28.1;
Taittir?ya
Br?hmana
3.2.3.1;
Satapatha
Br?hmana
11.1.8.3, 13.1.1.4;
Pa?cavimsa
Body
connections I 375
Br?hmana
8.6.3;
Jaimin?ya
Br?hmana
1.83, 1.321, 1.358, 3.155,
3.274.
39.
Aitareya
Br?hmana
4.23, 4.25, 5.32;
Kaus?taki Br?hmana
5.3, 12.8;
Satapatha
Br?hmana
2.2.4.4-7, 2.3.1.22, 2.4.4.1, 3.9.1.4, 6.3.1.18, 6.6.3.1;
Pa?cavim?a Br?hmana
4.1.4, 6.1.1,
6.3.9.
40.
Aitareya
Br?hmana
2.17, 6.19;
Kaus?taki Br?hmana
13.1, 26.3;
Taittiriya
Br?hmana
3.2.3.1, 3.7.2.1;
Satapatha
Br?hmana
4.2.4.16, 4.5.5.1, 4.5.6.1, 4.5.7.1,
5.1.4.1, 1.1.1.13, 1.2.5.12, 1.7.4.4, 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.4, 5.4.5.20-21,
6.4.1.6, 11.1.1.1, 12.1.8.3, 14.1.2.18, 14.2.2.21, 14.3.2.15;
Pa?cavimsa Br?hmana
7.2.1, 13.11.18;
Jaimin?ya
Br?hmana 1.135.
41.
See,
for
example,
Pa?cavim?a Br?hmana
25.6.2,
25.17.2.
42.
See, for
example, Aitareya
Br?hmana
4.23;
Kaus?taki Br?hmana 6.15, 5.3;
Satapatha
Br?hmana
2.5.1.17, 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.7, 2.6.3.4;
Pa?cavimsa Br?hmana
6.1.1-2, 8.5.6, 4.1.4, 22.9.2; Jaimin?ya
Br?hmana 1.67.
43. For a discussion of the role of the sacrifice in
constructing
an
orderly
cosmos
and
reconstituting
the creator
Praj?pati,
see Smith 1989: 50-81.
44. For a discussion of the
anthropogonic
function of the
sacrifice,
see Smith
1989: 82-119.
45. For an
extended
analysis
of the
ways
in which the taxonomies associated with
the discourse of sacrifice in the Br?hmanas serve to
perpetuate
and
legitimate
the
varna
system by presenting
the social
hierarchy
as
divinely
ordained and
part
of the
natural order of
things,
see Smith 1994.
46. This formula is
frequently repeated
in the
Satapatha
Br?hmana.
See,
for
example, Satapatha
Br?hmana
4.2.4.16, 4.5.5.1, 4.5.6.1,
4.5.7.1.
47. The
agnicayana ceremony
is discussed in K?ndas 6 to 10 of the
Satapatha
Br?hmana. For an extended
analysis
of the
agnicayana
ritual,
see Staal 1983. For
discussions of the
symbolism
of the fire
altar,
see Malamoud
1996;
Tull 1989: 72
102.
48.
See,
for
example,
Kaus?taki
Upanisad
1.7;
3.7.3
23.
49. In
1.4.1,
for
example,
?tman is said to exist alone
in the
beginning
in the form of Purusa. However,
the
Upanisads
at times
appear
to
distinguish
?tman and
Purusa, as, for
example,
in
Aitareya Upanisad
1.1.1-4,
which
will be discussed below.
50.
See,
for
example, Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad
2.3.3, 2.3.5;
Mundaka
Upanisad
2.1.2;
Pra?na
Upanisad
6.5.
51.
1.4.7, 2.5.1-15, 2.5.18;
Katha
Upanisad
4.12-13,
6.17;
Mundaka
Upanisad
2.1.4, 2.1.9-10; Svet?svatara
Upanisad
3.9, 3.11-21;
Maitri
Upanisad
2.5-6;
cf. Katha
Upanisad
6.8-9;
Praina
Upanisad
5.5.
52. For
references,
see n.51 above.
53. For a discussion of the
history
of the terms
'samny?sa* (renunciation)
and
'samny?sin' (renunciant)
and their relation to other terms used to
designate
a
renunciant,
such as
'parivr?jaka* (wanderer)
and 'bhiksu*
(mendicant),
see Olivelle
1981,
1984: 81-82.
376 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
54. For an
illuminating
discussion of ascetic modes of
deconstructing
the social
body,
see Olivelle 1995. See also Dumont's
(I960)
seminal
analysis
of the
dialectical
relationship
between the ideal
types
of the 'renouncer* and the 'man-in
the-world.*
55. For a discussion of the role of 'meditative
tapas'
in the
Upanisads
and later
ascetic
traditions,
see
Kaelber 1989.
56.
Among
the numerous
critiques
of Dumont's work,
see in
particular
Marriott
1969, 1976b;
Marriott and Inden
1977; Marglin
1977. With
respect
to the debates
between Dumont and
Marriott,
see n.60 below. See also the recent collection of
essays
edited
by
Carman and
Marglin (1985),
which examines the
relationship
between the
pure/impure dichotomy
and the
auspicious/inauspicious
dichotomy
in
Indian
society.
57. For the laws of
purification pertaining
to birth and death,
see Manusmrti 5.57
104.
58. For a
discussion of the mixed castes that result from anuloma and
pratiloma
marriages,
see Manusmrti
10.5-72,
3.12-19. See also Tambiah*s
(1973)
incisive
analysis
of the
generative
rules that
govern
the
production
and
ranking
of mixed
castes in the Manusmrti* s account.
59. For
references,
see
n.58 above.
60.
See,
for
example,
Manusmrti
4.205-23,
11.176,
11.181.
My analysis
here
concurs with Tambiah*s 'transactional
theory
of
purity
and
pollution*
(1973: 217),
which
emphasizes
not
only
the boundaries that
separate (Douglas
1966)
but also the
interactions that connect castes. Such an
approach provides
a
mediating position
between Dumonfs
(1970, 1980)
structural model of
a fixed caste
hierarchy
based on
the
pure/impure opposition
and Marriott's
(1968, 1976a)
transactional model of a
dynamic system
of caste interactions
involving
the
exchange
of food, women,
and
services.
61.
See,
for
example,
Manusmrti 5.4-56 and 11.91-99, 11.146-62,
which
delineate,
respectively, categories
of
permitted
and forbidden food and the
penances
for
ingesting
forbidden food and drink. For
analyses
of Hindu food taxonomies,
food
transactions,
and
culinary practices,
see Stevenson 1954:
52-59;
Marriott
1968, 1976a;
Khare
1976;
Khare and Rao 1986.
62. For an
analysis
of the
'grammar*
of the Dharmas?stras*
pollution
laws,
see
Orenstein
1965, 1968, 1970. See also Tambiah*s
(1973: 208-15)
critical assessment
and revision of Orenstein*s classification of
types
of
pollution.
63. See also Manusmrti
5.85,
which
gives
a similar list of
impure
persons
and
entities with whom one
should avoid contact.
64.
See,
for
example,
Manusmrti 5.137,
which
stipulates
that the
purification
process prescribed
for the householder should be doubled for the student,
tripled
for
the forest
hermit,
and
quadrupled
for the renunciant. See also Orenstein 1968: 120,
123.
65. See Manusmrti
9.18, 4.205-6,
11.36-37. However, the
presence
of the
yajam?na"s
wife is
required
at srauta sacrifices. See also Orenstein 1968: 122-23.
Body
connections I 311
66. For extended studies of the Tantric
body,
see in
particular
Flood
1993;
White
1996.
67.
Although
scholars of Hindu devotional traditions have of course noted the
role of the
body, relatively
few studies have
attempted
to theorize the
body
as a
central
category
in bhakti texts and
practices.
For recent studies of modes of
embodying
the divine in bhakti
traditions,
see
Waghorne
and
Cutler,
with
Narayanan
1985;
Hopkins
1993. See also
Hopkins*s forthcoming
book on the divine
body
in
South Indian devotional traditions.
References cited
Aitareya
Br?hmana. 1895-1906. The
Aitareya
Br?hmana
of
the
Rg
Veda
(ed.
Satyavrata S?maarami).
4 vols. Calcutta: Asiatic
Society
of
Bengal.
Aitareya Upanisad.
1958.
Aitareya Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D.
Vadekar, eds.,
Eighteen principal Upanisads,
62-67. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana M?ndala.
Armstrong,
David. 1983. Political
anatomy of
the
body:
Medical
knowledge
in
Britain in the twentieth
century. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Asad, Talal. 1997. Remarks on the
anthropology
of the
body.
In Sarah
Coakley,
ed.,
Religion
and the
body,
42-52.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bell, Catherine. 1992. Ritual
theory,
ritual
practice.
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Bell,
Rudolph
M. 1985.
Holy
anorexia.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Benthal!,
Jonathan and Ted
Polhemus,
eds. 1975. The
body
as a medium
of
expression.
London: Allen Lane.
Biale, David. 1992. Eros and the Jews: From biblical Israel to
contemporary
America. New York: Basic Books.
Blacking,
John. 1977. The
anthropology of
the
body.
London: Academic Press.
Body,
The. 1990.
History of religions
30,
1.
Body,
The: Lancaster
colloquium
on
comparative spirituality.
1989.
Religion 19,
3.
Bordo,
Susan. 1989. The
body
and the
reproduction
of
femininity:
A feminist
appropriation
of Foucault. In Alison M.
Jaggar
and Susan R.
Bordo, eds., Gender/
body/knowledge:
Feminist reconstructions
of being
and
knowing,
13-33. New
Brunswick:
Rutgers University
Press.
Bordo, Susan. 1993. Unbearable
weight:
Feminism,
Western culture, and the
body.
Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Bourdieu,
Pierre. 1977
[1972].
Outline
of
a
theory of practice
(trans.
Richard
Nice).
Press.
Bourdieu,
Pierre. 1984
(1979].
Distinction: A social
critique of
the
judgement of
taste
(trans.
Richard
Nice).
Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press.
Boyarin,
Daniel. 1993. Carnal Israel:
Reading
sex in Talmudic culture.
Berkeley:
University
Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad.
1958.
Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D.
378 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
Vadekar, eds.,
174-282. Poona: Vaidika Sam
sodhana M?ndala.
Brown,
Peter. 1988. The
body
and
society:
Men, women, and sexual renunciation in
early Christianity.
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Butler,
Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion
of identity.
New
York:
Routledge.
Butler,
Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits
of
'sex.' New York:
Routledge.
Bynum,
Caroline Walker. 1987.
Holy feast
and
holy fast:
The
religious significance
of food
to
medieval women.
Berkeley: University
Bynum,
Caroline Walker. 1991.
Fragmentation
and
redemption: Essays
on
gender
and the human
body
in medieval
religion.
New York: Zone Books.
Bynum,
Caroline Walker. 1995. The resurrection
of
the
body
in Western Chris
tianity,
200-1336. New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Camporesi,
Piero. 1988
[1983].
The
incorruptible flesh: Bodily
mutation and
mortification
in
religion
and
folklore (trans.
Tania
Croft-Murray
and Helen
Elsom).
Press.
Carman,
John B. and
Fr?d?rique Apffel Marglin,
eds. 1985.
Purity
and
auspiciousness
in Indian
society.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Cixous,
H?l?ne. 1976. The
laugh
of the medusa
(trans.
Keith Cohen and Paula
Cohen). Signs 1,4: 875-93.
Cixous,
H?l?ne. 1994. The H?l?ne Cixous reader
(ed.
Susan
Sellers).
London:
Routledge.
Cixous,
H?l?ne and Catherine Cl?ment. 1986
[1975].
The
newly
born woman
(trans.
Betsy Wing). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Coakley,
Sarah,
ed. 1997.
Religion
and the
body. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cooey,
Paula M. 1994.
Religious imagination
and the
body:
A
feminist analysis.
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Csordas,
Thomas J. 1990. Embodiment as a
paradigm
for
anthropology.
Ethos
18,
1 :
5-47.
Culianu,
loan P. 1991. A
corpus
for the
body.
Journal
of
modern
history 63,
1: 62
80.
Culianu,
loan P. 1995. Introduction: The
body
reexamined. In Jane Marie
Law, ed.,
Religious reflections
on the human
body,
1-18.
Bloomington:
Indiana
University
Press.
Dallery,
Arleen B. 1989. The
politics
of
writing
(the) body:
?criture
f?minine.
In
Alison M.
Jaggar
and Susan R.
Bordo, eds.,
Gender/body/knowledge:
Feminist
reconstructions
of being
and
knowing,
52-67. New Brunswick:
Rutgers
University
Press.
Daniel,
E Valentine. 1984. Fluid
signs: Being
a
person
the Tamil
way.
Berkeley:
University
Dissanayake,
Wimal. 1993.
Body
in social
theory.
In Thomas P.
Kasulis,
with
Roger
Body
connections / 379
T. Ames and Wimal
Dissanayake,
eds.,
Self
as
body
in Asian
theory
and
practice,
21-36.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Douglas, Mary.
1966.
Purity
and
danger:
An
analysis of concepts of pollution
and
taboo. London:
Routledge.
Douglas, Mary.
1973
[1970].
Natural
symbols: Explorations
in
cosmology.
London:
Barrie and Jenkins.
Duden, Barbara. 1989. A
repertory
of
body history.
In Michel Feher,
with Ramona
Naddaff and Nadia
Tazi, eds.,
Fragments for
a
history of
the human
body.
3: 471
?
554. New York: Zone Books.
Dumont, Louis. 1960. World renunciation in Indian
religions.
Contributions to
Indian
sociology
4: 33-62.
Dumont, Louis. 1970
[1966].
Homo hierarchies: An
essay
on
the caste
system
(trans.
Mark
Sainsbury). Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Dumont,
Louis. 1980
[1970].
Homo hierarchies: The caste
system
and its
implications (trans.
Mark
Sainsbury,
Louis
Dumont,
and Basia
Gulati).
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard,
ed. 1992.
People of
the
body:
Jews and Judaism
from
an
embodied
perspective. Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Elias, Norbert. 1978
[1939].
The
civilizing process.
Volume 1: The
history of
manners
(trans. Edmund
Jephcott).
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Falk,
Pasi. 1994. The
consuming body.
London:
Sage
Publications.
Featherstone, Mike,
Mike
Hepworth,
and
Bryan
S.
Turner, eds. 1991. The
body:
Social
process
and cultural
theory.
London:
Sage
Publications.
Feher, Michel,
with Ramona Naddaff and Nadia Tazi,
eds. 1989.
Fragments for
a
history of
the human
body.
3 vols. New York: Zone Books.
Flood, Gavin D. 1993.
Body
and
cosmology
in Kashmir Saivism. San Francisco:
Mellen Research
University
Press.
Foucault,
Michel. 1973
[1963].
The birth
of
the clinic: An
archaeology of
medical
perception (trans.
A. M. Sheridan
Smith).
New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault,
Michel. 1979
[1975]. Discipline
and
punish:
The birth
of
the
prison
(trans.
Alan
Sheridan).
New York:
Vintage
Books.
Foucault,
Michel. 1980.
Body/power.
In Colin
Gordon, ed.,
Power/knowledge:
Selected interviews and other
writings
1972-1977
(trans.
Colin
Gordon,
Leo
Marshall,
John
Mepham,
and Kate
Soper),
55-62. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault,
Michel. 1988-90
[1976, 1984].
The
history of sexuality
(trans.
Robert
Hurley).
3 vols. New York:
Vintage
Books.
Frank,
Arthur W. 1990.
Bringing
bodies back in: A decade review.
Theory,
culture
and
society
7,
1: 131-62.
Freund,
Peter E
S.,
with the assistance of Miriam Fisher. 1982. The
civilized
body:
Social
domination, control and health.
Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Freund, Peter E. S. 1988.
Bringing society
into the
body: Understanding
socialized
human nature.
Theory
and
society
17,
6: 839-64.
380 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
Gallagher,
Catherine and Thomas
Laqueur,
eds. 1987. The
making of
the modern
body: Sexuality
and
society
in the nineteenth
century. Berkeley: University
of
California Press.
Gallop,
Jane. 1988.
Thinking through
the
body.
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Gonda,
Jan. 1955. Reflections on sarva- in Vedic texts. Indian
linguistics
16: 53
71.
Gonda,
Jan. 1982.
All, universe and
totality
in the
Satapatha-Br?hmana.
Journal
of
the Oriental Institute
(Baroda) 32,
1-2: 1-17.
Gonda,
Jan. 1983. Vedic
gods
and the sacrifice. Numen 30,
1: 1-34.
Griffiths,
Paul J. 1986. On
being
mindless: Buddhist meditation and the
mind-body
problem.
La Salle:
Open
Court.
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile bodies: Toward
a
corporeal feminism.
Bloom
ington:
Indiana
University
Press.
Holdrege,
Barbara A 1996. Veda and Torah:
Transcending
the
textuality of
scripture. Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Holdrege,
Barbara A 1999. What have brahmins to do with rabbis? Embodied
communities and
paradigms
of
religious
tradition.
Shofar 17,
3: 23-50.
Hopkins,
Steven P. 1993. In love with the
body
of God: Eros and the
praise
of icons
in South Indian devotion. Journal
of
Vaisnava studies
2,
1: 17-54.
Hopkins,
Steven P. n.d.
Singing
the
body of
God: The
hymns of
Ved?ntadesika in
South Indian tradition. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Irigaray,
Luce. 1985a
[1974]. Speculum of
the other woman
(trans.
Gillian C.
Gill).
Ithaca: Cornell
University
Press.
Irigaray,
Luce. 1985b
[1977].
This sex which is not one
(trans.
Catherine
Porter,
with
Carolyn
Burke). Ithaca: Cornell
University
Press.
Irigaray,
Luce. 1993
[1984].
An ethics
of
sexual
difference (trans.
Carolyn
Burke and
Gillian C.
Gill).
Ithaca: Cornell
University
Press.
Jackson,
Michael. 1983.
Knowledge
of the
body.
Man
(n.s.) 18,
2: 327-45.
Jacobus,
Mary, Evelyn
Fox
Keller, and
Sally
Shuttleworth,
eds. 1990.
Body/politics:
Women and the discourses
of
science. New York:
Routledge.
Jaimin?ya
Br?hmana. 1986
[1954]. Jaimin?ya
Br?hmana
of
the S?maveda
(eds.
Raghu
Vira and Lokesh
Chandra).
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Jaimin?ya Upanisad
Br?hmana. 1894. The
Jaimin?ya
or
Talavak?ra
Upanisad
Br?hmana
(ed.
Hanns
Oertel).
Journal
of
the American Oriental
Society 16,
1: 79
260.
Johnson,
Mark. 1987. The
body
in the mind: The
bodily
basis
of meaning, imagina
tion, and reason.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Kaelber,
Walter O. 1989.
Tapta marga:
Asceticism and initiation in Vedic India.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Kasulis, Thomas P. 1993. Introduction. In Thomas P.
Kasulis,
with
Roger
T. Ames
and Wimal
Dissanayake,
eds.,
Self
as
body
in Asian
theory
and
practice,
xi-xxii.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Body
connections / 381
Kasulis,
Thomas
P.,
with
Roger
T. Ames and Wimal
Dissanayake,
eds. 1993.
Self
as
body
in Asian
theory
and
practice. Albany:
State
University
of New York
Press.
Katha
Upanisad.
1958. Katha
Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D. Vadekar,
eds.,
11-27. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana
M?ndala.
Kaus?taki Br?hmana
(S?nkhay?na
Br?hmana).
1970.
S?nkhay?na-Br?hmanam
(ed.
Hari
narayan Bhattacharya).
Calcutta: Sanskrit
College.
Kaus?taki
Upanisad.
1958. Kaus?taki
Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D. Vadekar,
eds.,
M?ndala.
Khare,
R. S. 1976. Culture and
reality: Essays
on the Hindu
system of managing
foods.
Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced
Study.
Khare,
R. S. and M. S. A.
Rao,
eds. 1986.
Aspects
in South Asian
food systems:
Food,
society,
and culture. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Koller,
John M. 1993. Human embodiment: Indian
perspectives.
In Thomas P.
Kasulis,
with
Roger
T. Ames and Wimal
Dissanayake,
eds.,
Self
as
body
in Asian
theory
and
practice,
45-58.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Kristeva,
Julia. 1980
[1977, 1979].
Desire in
language:
A semiotic
approach
to
literature and art
(trans.
Thomas
Gora,
Alice Jardine,
and Leon S. Roudiez;
ed.
Leon S.
Roudiez).
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Kristeva,
Julia. 1982
[1980].
Powers
of
horror: An
essay
on
abjection
(trans.
Leon S.
Roudiez).
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Kristeva,
Julia. 1986. The Kristeva reader
(ed.
Toril
Moi).
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
LaFleur,
William R. 1998.
Body.
In Mark C.
Taylor,
ed.,
Critical
terms
for religious
studies,
36-54.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Lakoff,
George.
1987.
Women,
fire,
and
dangerous things:
What
categories
reveal
about the mind.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Laqueur,
Thomas. 1990.
Making
sex:
Body
and
gender from
the Greeks to Freud.
Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press.
Larson,
Gerald James. 1993.
Ayurveda
and the Hindu
philosophical
systems.
In
Thomas P.
Kasulis,
with
Roger
T. Ames and Wimal
Dissanayake,
eds.,
Self
as
body
in Asian
theory
and
practice,
103-21.
Albany:
State
University
of New York
Press.
Larson,
Gerald James and Ram Shankar
Bhattacharya,
eds. 1987.
S?mkhya:
A dualist
tradition in Indian
philosophy.
Princeton: Princeton
University
Press.
Law,
Jane Marie,
ed. 1995.
Religious reflections
on the human
body. Bloomington:
Indiana
University
Press.
Levin,
David Michael. 1985. The
body's
recollection
of Being: Phenomenological
psychology
and the deconstruction
of
nihilism. London:
Routledge.
Lincoln,
Bruce. 1986.
Myth,
cosmos, and
society: Indo-European
themes
of
creation
and destruction.
Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press.
382 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
L?pez
Austin,
Alfredo. 1988
[1980].
The human
body
and
ideology: Concepts of
the ancient Nahuas
(trans.
Thelma Ortiz de Montellano and Bernard Ortiz de
Montellano).
2 vols. Salt Lake
City: University
of Utah Press.
Maitri
Upanisad.
1958. Maitri
Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D.
Vadekar, eds.,
Malamoud,
Charles. 1996
[1989]. Cooking
the world: Ritual and
thought
in ancient
India
(trans.
David
White).
Delhi: Oxford
University
Press.
Malamoud, Charles and Jean-Pierre Ventant,
eds. 1986.
Corps
des dieux. Paris:
Gallimard.
Malti-Douglas,
Fedwa. 1991. Woman's
body,
woman's word: Gender and discourse
in Arabo-Islamic
writing.
Princeton: Princeton
University
Press.
Manusmrti. 1972-85. Manu-Smrti
(ed. Jayantakrishna
Harikrishna Dave).
6 vols.
Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan.
Marglin, Fr?d?rique Apffel.
1977.
Power,
purity
and
pollution: Aspects
of the caste
system
reconsidered. Contributions to Indian
sociology (n.s.) 2,
2: 245-70.
Marriott,
McKim. 1968. Caste
ranking
and food transactions:
A matrix
analysis.
In
Milton
Singer
and Bernard S.
Cohn, eds.,
Structure and
change
in Indian
society,
133-71.
Chicago:
Aldine.
Marriott, McKim. 1969. Review of Homo hierarchicus: Essai
sur le
syst?me
des
castes,
by
Louis Dumont. American
anthropologist
71,6:
1166-75.
Marriott,
McKim. 1976a. Hindu transactions:
Diversity
without dualism. In Bruce
Kapferer,
ed.,
Transaction and
meaning:
Directions in the
anthropology of
exchange
and
symbolic behavior,
109-42.
Philadelphia:
Institute for the
Study
of
Human Issues.
Marriott,
McKim. 1976b.
Interpreting
Indian
society:
A monistic alternative to
Dumont's dualism. Journal
of
Asian studies
36,
1: 189-95.
Marriott,
McKim and Ronald B. Inden. 1977, Toward
an
ethnosociology
of South
Asian caste
systems.
In Kenneth David, ed., The new wind:
Changing
identities in
South
Asia,
227-38. The
Hague:
Mouton.
Martin,
Emily.
1987. The wontan in the
body:
A cultural
analysis of reproduction.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Mauss,
Marcel. 1979
[1950]. Sociology
and
psychology: Essays
(trans.
Ben
Brewster).
London:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
McGuire,
Meredith B. 1990.
Religion
and the
body: Rematerializing
the human
body
in the social sciences of
religion.
Journal
for
the
scientific study of religion
29,
3: 283-96.
Mennell,
Stephen.
1991. On the
civilizing
of
appetite.
In Mike Featherstone, Mike
Hep worth,
and
Bryan
S.
Turner, eds.,
The
body:
Social
process
and cultural
theory,
126-56. London:
Sage
Publications.
Merleau-Ponty,
Maurice. 1962
[1945]. Phenomenology of perception
(trans.
Colin
Smith).
London:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
Michie,
Helena. 1987. The
flesh
made word: Female
figures
and women's bodies.
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Body
connections / 383
Midgley, Mary.
1997. The soul's successors:
Philosophy
and the
'body.1
In Sarah
Coakley,
ed.,
Religion
and the
body,
53-68.
Press.
Miles,
Margaret
R. 1989. Carnal
knowing:
Female nakedness and
religious meaning
in the Christian West. Boston: Beacon Press.
Moi,
Toril. 1985. Sexual/textual
politics:
Feminist
literary theory.
London:
Methuen.
Mundaka
Upanisad.
1958. Mundaka
Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D.
Vadekar,
eds.,
M?ndala.
Nagatomo, Shigenori.
1992. Attunement
through
the
body. Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Olivelle,
Patrick. 1981. Contributions to the semantic
history
of
samny?sa.
Journal
of
the American Oriental
Society
101,
3: 265-74.
Olivelle,
Patrick. 1984. Renouncer and renunciation in the Dharmas?stras. In
Richard W.
Lariviere, ed.,
Studies in
Dharmasdstra, 81-152. Calcutta: Firma
KLM
Olivelle,
Patrick. 1995. Deconstruction of the
body
in Indian asceticism. In Vincent
L. Wimbush and Richard
Valantasis, eds., Asceticism, 188-210. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
O'Neill,
John. 1985. Five bodies: The human
shape of
modern
society.
Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press.
O'Neill,
John. 1989. The communicative
body:
Studies in communicative
philosophy,
politics,
and
sociology.
Evanston: Northwestern
University
Press.
Orenstein,
Henry.
1965. The structure of Hindu caste values: A
preliminary study
of
hierarchy
and ritual defilement.
Ethnology
4,
1: 1-15.
Orenstein,
Henry.
1968. Toward a
grammar
of defilement in Hindu sacred law. In
Milton
Singer
and Bernard S.
Cohn, eds., Structure and
change
in Indian
society,
115-31.
Chicago:
Aldine.
Orenstein,
Henry.
1970.
Logical congruence
in Hindu sacred law: Another
interpretation.
Contributions to Indian
sociology (n.s.)
4: 22-35.
Pa?cavimsa Br?hmana
(T?ndya
Br?hmana).
1870-74.
T?ndya
Mah?br?hmana (ed.
?nandachandra
Ved?ntavag?sa).
2 vols. Calcutta: Asiatic
Society
of
Bengal.
Polhemus, Ted,
ed. 1978. Social
aspects of
the human
body.
Harmondsworth:
Penguin
Books.
Potter,
Karl H., ed. 1981. Advaita Ved?nta
up
to
Samkara and his
pupils.
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.
Prasna
Upanisad.
1958. Prasna
Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D.
Vadekar, eds..
Rg
Veda Samhit?. 1890-92
[1849-74]. Rig-Veda-Samhit? (ed.
F. Max
M?ller).
London: Oxford
University
Press.
Rousselle,
Aline. 1988
[1983],
Porneia: On desire and the
body
in
antiquity (trans.
Felicia
Pheasant).
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
384 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
Ruth,
David N. 1974. The social reference of
body symbols
in
religion.
In Allan W.
Eister, ed.,
Changing perspectives
in the
scientific study of religion,
227-41. New
York: John
Wiley
and Sons.
Satapatha
Br?hmana. 1964
[1855].
The
Satapatha-Br?hmana (ed.
Albrecht
Weber).
Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Scarry,
Elaine. 1985. The
body
in
pain:
The
making
and
unmaking of
the world. New
York: Oxford
University
Press.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy
and
Margaret
M. Lock. 1987. The mindful
body:
A
prolegomenon
to future work in medical
anthropology.
Medical
anthropology
quarterly (n.s.) 1,1:
6-41.
Schipper,
Kristofer. 1993
[1982].
The Taoist
body (trans.
Karen C.
Duval).
Berkeley:
University
of
California Press.
Schr?g,
Calvin O. 1979
[1972].
The lived
body
as a
phenomenological
datum. In
Ellen W. Gerber and William J.
Morgan,
eds.,
Sport
and the
body:
A
philosophical
symposium,
155-62.
Philadelphia:
Lea and
Febiger.
Scott,
Sue and David
Morgan,
eds. 1993.
Body
matters:
Essays
on the
sociology of
the
body.
London: Falmer Press.
Shaner,
David Edward. 1985. The
bodymind experience
in
Japanese
Buddhism: A
phenomenological perspective of
Kukai and
Dogen. Albany:
State
University
of
New York Press.
Shilling,
Chris. 1993. The
body
and social
theory.
London:
Sage
Publications.
Simpson,
J. H. 1993.
Religion
and the
body: Sociological
themes and
prospects.
In
W. H.
Swatos, Jr., ed,
A
future for religion?
New
paradigms for
social
analysis,
149-64.
Newbury
Park:
Sage
Publications.
Smith,
Brian K 1989.
Reflections
on
resemblance, ritual
and
religion.
New York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Smith,
Brian K 1994.
Classifying
the universe: The ancient Indian varna
system
and the
origins of
caste. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Srinivas,
M. N. 1952.
Religion
and
society among
the
Coorgs of
South India.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Staal,
Frits, 1983.
Agni:
The Vedic ritual
of
the
fire
altar. 2 vols.
Berkeley:
Asian
Humanities Press.
Staal,
Frits. 1993. Indian bodies. In Thomas P. Kasulis, with
Roger
T. Ames and
Wimal
Dissanayake,
eds.,
Self
as
body
in Asian
theory
and
practice,
59-102.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Stevenson,
H. N. C 1954. Status evaluation in the Hindu caste
system.
Journal
of
the
Royal Anthropological
Institute
of
Great Britain and Ireland 84,
1-2: 45
65.
Strathern,
Andrew J. 1996.
Body thoughts.
Ann Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press.
Suleiman,
Susan
Rubin,
ed. 1986. The
female body
in Western culture:
Contempo
rary perspectives. Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press.
Sullivan,
Lawrence E 1990.
Body
works:
Knowledge
of the
body
in the
study
of
religion. History of religions 30,
I: 86-99.
Body
connections I 385
Svet?svatara
Upanisad.
1958. Svet?svatara
Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R.
D.
Vadekar, eds.,
283-300. Poona: Vaidika
Samsodhana M?ndala.
Synnott, Anthony.
1993. The
body
social:
Symbolism, self
and
society.
London:
Routledge.
Taittiriya
Br?hmana. 1979
[1898]. TaittirJya-Br?hmana
(ed. Narayana
a?stri
Godabole).
3 vols. Poona: ?nand?srama Press.
Taittiriya
Samhit?. 1860-99. The Sanhit?
of
the Black
Yajur
Veda
(eds.
E. R?er,
E B.
Cowell, Mahesachandra
Ny?yaratna,
and
Satyavrata
Samasram?).
6 vols. Calcutta:
Asiatic
Society
of
Bengal.
Taittiriya Upanisad.
1958.
Taittirtya Upanisad.
In V. P.
Limaye
and R. D.
Vadekar,
eds., Eighteen principal Upanisads,
Tambiah,
Stanley
J. 1973. From varna to caste
through
mixed unions. In Jack
Goody,
ed.,
The character
of kinship,
191-229.
Press.
Tull,
Herman W, 1989. The Vedic
origins of
karma: Cosmos
as man in ancient Indian
myth
and ritual.
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Turner,
Bryan
S. 1982. The
government
of the
body:
Medical
regimens
and the
rationalization of diet. British
journal of sociology
33,
2: 254-69.
Turner,
Bryan
S. 1991a. Recent
developments
in the
theory
of the
body.
In Mike
Featherstone,
Mike
Hepworth,
and
Bryan
S. Turner, eds.,
The
body:
Social
process
and cultural
theory,
1-35. London:
Sage
Publications.
Turner,
Bryan
S. 1991b. The discourse of diet. In Mike Featherstone,
Mike
Hepworth,
and
Bryan
S.
Turner, eds.,
The
body:
Social
process
and cultural
theory,
157-69.
London:
Sage
Publications.
Turner, Bryan
S. 1992.
Regulating
bodies:
Essays
in medical
sociology.
London:
Routledge.
Turner,
Bryan
S. 1996a
[1984].
The
body
and
society: Explorations
in social
theory.
London:
Sage
Publications.
Turner,
Bryan
S. 1996b
[1984].
Introduction to the second edition: The embodiment
of social
theory.
In
Bryan
S. Turner,
The
body
and
society: Explorations
in social
theory,
1-36. London:
Sage
Publications.
Waghorne,
Joanne Punzo and Norman
Cutler,
in association
with Vasudha
Narayanan,
eds. 1985. Gods
of flesh/Gods of
stone: The embodiment
of divinity
in
India.
Chambersburg:
Anima.
Warner,
Richard and Tadeusz
Szubka,
eds. 1994. The
mind-body problem:
A
guide
to
the current debate. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
White,
David Gordon. 1996. The alchemical
body:
Siddha traditions in medieval
India.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Wilson,
Liz. 1996.
Charming
cadavers:
Horrific figurations of
the
feminine
in
Indian Buddhist
hagiographie
literature.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Wolfson,
Elliot R. 1995. Circle in the
square:
Studies
in the use
of gender
in
kabbalistic
symbolism. Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
386 / Barbara A.
Holdrege
Yuasa,
Yasuo. 1987
[1977].
The
body:
Toward
an Eastern
mitid-body theory (trans.
Shigenori Nagatomo
and Thomas P.
Kasulis;
ed. Thomas P.
Kasulis).
Albany:
State
University
of New York Press.
Yuasa,
Yasuo. 1993
[1986].
The
body, self-cultivation,
and
ki-energy (trans.
Shigenori Nagatomo
and Monte S.
Hull). Albany:
State
University
of New York
Press.
Zaner,
Richard M. 1964. The
problem of
embodiment: Some contributions to a
phenomenology of
the
body.
The
Hague:
Martinus
Nijhoff.
Zaner,
Richard M. 1981. 77ie context
of self:
A
phenomenological
inquiry using
medicine
as a clue. Athens: Ohio
University
Press.
Zito,
Angela
and Tani E
Barlow,
eds. 1994.
Body, subject
and
power
in China.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
BARBARA A. HOLDREGE is Associate Professor of
Religious
Studies
at
the
University
of
California,
Santa Barbara.

Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of The Body and The Study of Religion - Barbara A. Holdrege

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of The Body and The Study of Religion - Barbara A. Holdrege

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Author(s): Barbara A. Holdrege

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi