Jan E M Houben

Does classical Sanskrit dharma represent a homogeneous concept? or rather a heterogeneous concept, a fragmented, broken concept, the product of antagonisms in a domain, or in several contested domains? What is the history of this term starting from the Vedic language, the ancient Prakrit of Aśoka and the Pali of ancient Buddhism? Unlike other Rgvedic terms such as rtá 'cosmic order, justice, truth' and vratá 'observance' which had already obtained well-established special meanings, it turns out that the meaning of dhárman and dharmán remained largely yaugika in the Rigveda:, it remained transparent and comprehensible according to the simple and intuitive grammatical derivation (root plus primary suffix), for dhárman therefore, according to the context, 'act or fact of holding, supporting, maintaining, bearing, supporting, preserving, employing, practicing '. In the Avesta or in the ancient inscriptions of the Persian Empire there could have been a form comparable to dhárman and dharmán in the Rgveda, but no such form is attested there. The Rgvedic period is moreover followed by a long period when the word dhárman did not arouse any special interest. The theory of the  Rgveda as a source of an orthogenetic conceptual development on the basis of the Rgvedic word dhárman is therefore entirely untenable. The emergence of specialized concepts and of dharma as a keyword for these concepts did not take place in the Rgveda, but rather in a milieu of ascetics, especially Buddhists. King Aśoka's propaganda then contributed significantly to spreading a specific concept of dharma, to which the 'dharmaśāstric' concept of dharma was a kind of response. This 'dharmaśāstric' concept of dharma is more or less the only one actively used in Patañjali's Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya, whereas dharma 'property' – part of a kind of response by Vaiśeṣikas and others to the Buddhists’ dharma ‘thing’ – is still almost entirely absent there. Later, in the work of Bhartrhari, the gap between the senses of dharma, a relatively rare ‘dharmaśāstric’ sense and a very frequent dharma ‘property’, is immense. During our study, we have thus been able to identify a concrete semantic transition of the term dharma among grammarians. We see these very divergent concepts which take dharma as their keyword – the traces of a fragmented concept – not only among grammarians who have contributed enormously to philosophical discourse over the centuries, but more widely in the philosophical vocabulary of the time.

Review article of:
Ole Holten Pind, Dignāga’s Philosophy of Language: Pramāṇasamuccayavṛtti V on anyāpoha. Part 1: Text; Part 2: Translation and Annotation (Sitzungsberichte / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Bd. 871; Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, Nr. 92). Edited by Ernst Steinkellner. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015, lxxix + 63; 255 pp., ISBN 978-3-7001-7865-1

The way the Indian grammarian-philosopher Bhartrhari (5th century C.E.) deals with the liar paradox and some other paradoxes is not without relevance to Western attempts to cope with similar paradoxes since the early Greeks. The philological study of the relevant verses and a discussion on the identification of the paradoxes and their treatment by Bhartrhari have appeared in earlier publications (Houben 1995a and 1995b). The present article recapitulates the argument and concentrates next on the paradox of unsignifiability. Suppose someone maintains: this is unsignifiable. One may understand that there is a this that is unsignifiable, but then one has to admit that this has become signifiable as unsignifiable. Otherwise: taking this immediately as unsignifiable even its unsignifiability cannot be signified, in other words, its unsignifiability is unsignifiable; again, the unsignifiability of this unsignifiability must be equally unsignifiable, etc., etc... H. and R. Herzberger (1981) have shown how the points presented by Bhartrhari can be developed into a stable paradox in the modern sense. Bhartrhari, however, identifies a hidden parameter that leads to a paradoxical situation if neglected, and that helps to solve the paradox if it arises. Bhartrhari was never confronted with anything similar to the strengthened paradoxes of modern logic, but the hidden parameter identified by him is not only suitable to Barwise's and Etchemendy's solution (1989) to paradoxes such as the liar, but even points to an important improvement of Barwise's and Etchemendy's theory in the area of paradoxical universalistic statements where their current approach flounders. According to its immediate context, Bhartrhari's treatment of paradoxes applies to relations in general and more specifically to significance relations (between signifier and signified); but it has direct implications for the potential problem of the paradoxality of universalistic statements. Here it

L'A. examine les differentes etapes dans le developpement du terme sanskrit ahimsā qui est associe aujourd'hui a la notion de non-violence. Il analyse sa signification principale ainsi que les changements et les variations dans son utilisation et dans ses connotations, en se basant sur un passage du Taittirīya Brāhmana qui decrit le sacrifice d'un cheval

In view of the date of the Abhinavacintāmaṇi and the historical phase that can be assumed for Āyurveda and medical knowledge and practice at that time, two questions present themselves: (1) whether, and, if yes, to what extent, this text participates in the new developments in India, and (2) to what extent it participates in the “post-classical” (post-Aṣṭāṅga-hdaya) tradition of Āyurveda of more than a millennium.

L'A. examine six references a un personnage respectable du MBhD (Mahābhāsya-Dīpikā) de Bhartrahri, ainsi que trois references dans le Vrtti sur le VP (Vākyapadīya) de Bhartrhari. Le mot employe dans le MBhD est «ihabhavantah», tandis que celui utilise dans le VP-Vrtti est «tatrabhavat». On a decouvert que les deux termes se referent a un grammairien de la tradition Pāninian. Toutes les affirmations du MBhD et probablement aussi celles du VP-Vrtti ont le MBh de Patanjali comme point de depart. L'argument des affirmations attribuees a ce grammairien est tres sophistique, car il cherche generalement a parvenir a une justification optimale d'un passage du MBh.

et methode dans l’histoire intellectuelle de l’Inde—Seminar Theory and Method in Indian Intellectual History,’’ which took place in June, 2004, at the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes (EPHE), Paris. The workshop was conceived as the collective exercise of 11 scholars who had been working for several years in the largely unexplored domain of sixteenthto eighteenth-century scientific texts in Sanskrit. Previous meetings of the Sanskrit Knowledge Systems research group had been devoted to discussions of the materials—texts, manuscripts, inscriptions, prosopography—investigated by each scholar, but the present seminar aimed at introducing a moment of reflection in another dimension, reflection not on the material under investigation but on the theoretical and methodological presuppositions in our investigations. We also wanted to invite critical reflection on contemporary theories and methods of intellectual history and of the anthropology and sociology of knowledge, and to ask to what extent they are relevant to premodern India, where the production, reception and transmission of texts took place in configurations and conditions often entirely different from those in Europe. It goes without saying that we viewed our discussions as only the beginning of a long and complex but fascinating conversation. The Paris colloque was made possible by funds from the United States National Science Foundation (grant SES-0135069) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (grant RZ-20701). Both of us would like to express our gratitude to the International Institute of Asian Studies, Leiden, and especially to its then director,

The Vedic Pravargya is a ritual that is optiionally performed in connection with a Soma sacrifice. It is a unique Indo-Aryan development, without parallels in Iran or in areas of Indo-Europeans, and it can be traced back as far as 1500 B.C.E. (cf. Houben 2000a and b). The central object in the ritual is an earthenware pot that is placed on a fire until it is burning hot. At that moment the pot is identified with the sun, but also with the inner light of the inspired Vedic poet. As I argued recently (Houben 2006), the myths associated with the Pravargya do have Indo-European parallels, especially in Celtic stories on a magic cauldron (continued in the legend of the Holy Grail). (...) <br> <br>

1. One of the striking features of intellectual discussions of Sanskrit authors in the centuries preceding South Asia's colonial period is the importance of semantic issues, and the sophistication with which these are approached. Major philosophical and religious topics are commonly discussed with reference to the semantic properties of relevant terms. The sophistication had developed in various directions, especially in the directions of grammar, logic, and exegesis, each with a long history in the Sanskrit tradition. The proper evaluation of discussions taking place "on the eve of colonialism" generally requires familiarity with the intellectual achievements in these directions. Major landmarks in the Sanskrit tradition pertaining to semantics have been reviewed in Houben 1997a. At this place a brief evaluative survey is given with special attention to the period presently under discussion.

The earliest stages in the history of the study of Indian palaeography, as perceived by A.H. Dani in the Introduction to his manual Indian Palaeography (1963, 1986), were the “period of the discovery of the inscriptions and the decipherment of the scripts used in them”(from the late eighteenth century onwards), culminating in the work of James Prinsep (1799-1840), and a period when “Indian palaeography became a recognized study,” with copies of numerous inscriptions accompanied by extensive studies being published in specialized journals, but this was also a period in which the evolutionary character of Indian scripts was discovered, analysed and explored. The third period started with Georg Bühler’s Indische Palaeographie (1896), in which this “evolutionary character of Indian scripts” is accepted but there is a further analysis of their “regional and chronological variations.” Here we make a small contribution to a specific regional variant of the ancient Indian Siddham script in China. From the research of scholars such as Walter Liebenthal (1886-1982) and R.H. van Gulik (1910-1967), we know that “the study of the Sanskrit language never flourished in either China or Japan” (van Gulik 1956: 5) but that nevertheless “the Indian script – in a variety of Brāhmī called Siddham – played an important role in Far Eastern Buddhism ever since the introduction of this script into China in the 8th century CE” (ibid.). In this article we discuss and analyze a few objects which we encountered during a trip to the Yunnan province in China, in autumn 2016. As is usual, these inscriptions in Siddham have no “reporting” or “administrative” value, they do not report a remarkable political event or donation, etc. Frequently they express a prayer formula or brief text, a mantra or a dhāraṇī, which is connected to some ritual. We study here the ritual context of the object and the palaeographic connection with scripts in India.

The Indian grammatical tradition is in three major ways relevant to the problem of ‘scientification’ and ‘scientism’ in the humanities: (1) as a modern example of ‘scientification’, or, more precisely: of ‘occidental’ and modern scientification in our understanding of ancient Indian knowledge systems -- this is, more in particular, relevant to a recent trend to make semantics a 'deus ex machina' type of starting point for the classical Sanskrit grammar derivation of linguistic utterances (as in Scharf 2011 "On the semantic foundation..."); (2) as an instructive historical alternative for ‘scientification’; (3) as partner in philosophical dialogue.
In the present essay I briefly discuss the first three points (the third point very briefly), and add some reflections on the role of the Art of Grammar in a future perspective on the social sciences and humanities, and on ‘social science fiction’.
Keywords:
1. Indian grammatical tradition
2. Pāṇini’s grammar
3. Scientification
4. Noam Chomsky
5. Bhartṛhari’s Mahābhāṣya-Dīpikā
6. Āpiśali
7. Jürgen Habermas
8. Periodic table of phonemes
9. Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907)
10. Otto Böhtlingk (1815-1904)
11. Lived world
12. Cultural and political worlds

The earliest more or less datable events in South Asia's cultural history, the death of the Buddha and the composition of Pāṇini's grammar - respectively five and four centuries before the beginning of the common era - antedate with one to two centuries the start of a slow and hesitant shift from orality to the written transmission of sacred and literary texts in South Asia. With regard to Vedic texts we have, moreover, clear indications that their transmittors avoided and evaded their transferral to a written form for a very long time, whereas Buddhist scriptures, for instance, were transferred from purely oral to mainly written transmission much earlier. We are therefore confronted with a tradition of Vedic texts stretching over at least two to three millennia, out of which only the last few centuries show a tangible text transmission in written form, usually parallel with a gradually weakening oral and ritual tradition that to varying degrees takes occasional or even syst...

“Ecology of Ritual Innovation in Ancient India: Textual and Contextual Evidence.” In: Self, Sacrifice, and Cosmos: Vedic Thought, Ritual, and Philosophy, pp. 182-210 (References to this article integrated in id., “Bibliography,” pp. 223-238.) Delhi: Primus Books, 2019.
Against the background of a prevailing tension between ritual prescriptions and a continuous, or continuously reinvented, practice of Vedic ritual, this article considers, at first, the nature of this ritual for which the Brāhmaṇa-texts are, philologically and traditionally, the principal sources.
Subsequently, it analyses what we can know and infer about the context of this ritual.
Aspects of the evolution of Vedic ritual and its ecological context, partly in comparison with ritual in ancient Iran, are discussed in the next section.
All these subjects will be dealt with very briefly in the light of some of my previous studies in these domains and with a view to explore directions of future research.

RV 1.164 verses 23-24, two enigmatic statements in the "Riddle Hymn," express two complementary viewpoints on the relationship between smaller and larger units of metrical speech employed in ritual chanting. As such, they provide antecedents for two complementary views which play a major role in Bhartrhari's Vâkyapadîya, one according to which the units of a lower organizational level (especially the word and its meaning) are primary, the other according to which units of a higher organizational level (especially the sentence and its meaning) are primary. With an *update* on p. 7.

Most of the assumptions in the first series of A. Goldberg's 'foundational
assumptions' of cognitive linguistics (Goldberg 1996) suit the ideas of the 5th century Sanskrit grammarian and philosopher Bhartrhari remarkably well.
I will focus here first of all on a discussion of this first series.
It will provide refreshing insights on discussions in Bhartrhari's work that otherwise appear rather idiosyncratic and unclear. I will next elaborate the problematic involved in especially the last point of the list and show its pertinence for the problem of the presence or absence of a structure in language in general and Sanskrit in particular. At the end, I will show how our findings correspond with six (or seven) fundamental theses formulated by W. Croft (2003).

Among fundamental, problematic aspects of the relation between thought and language, there are questions such as:
How is language (spoken or written) perceived and understood?
How is a message or idea ‘encoded’ in language?
What truth-claims can be upheld for knowledge based on language?
What is the relation between language and the process of thinking in general, or of logical thought in particular?
A basic issue relevant to all these questions is: are thought, thinking, understanding always connected with language, not just at the level of discursive thinking which seems clearly language-related, but also at the level of vaguer thoughts and ideas? Or are there ‘cognitive episodes’ which are entirely ‘free from language’?
It is this basic issue that was of crucial importance in philosophical and linguistic discussions in the Sanskrit tradition. It is on this basic issue, already evoked in Upanisadic statements, that the present article is focused.
At the background of the problems of the relation between language and thought there is a larger problematic set of notions, namely language, thought and reality. Problems concerning language and thought and their relation are therefore, also in this article, inextricably bound up with ontological questions (‘what is real?’), apart from linguistic and epistemological ones.

Over several millennia, the Vedic ritual system has been of great direct and indirect importance in the cultural history of the Indian subcontinent and neighbouring areas. As a phenomenon of extraordinary dimensions and unique configurations, it poses a major challenge both to indologists and to ritual scientists. We focus here on the formal structure of ritual pertaining to what can be called the canonical dimension, the dimension for which it makes sense to ask whether or not, or to what extent, there is scope for a “grammatical” or “morphological” approach. Within their formal structure, Vedic ritual show some remarkable self-referential loops. One of them concerns the Vedic Nihnava-rite, an episode within the Soma-ritual that has been used as a major example to illustrate a supposed fundamental meaninglessness of ritual. This Nihnava is, in fact, solidly meaningful if we properly distinguish different organisational levels in ritual. In a further analysis, the Nihnava turns out to presuppose intra-ritual reference, which renders the ritual as a whole self-referential. Together with the meaning that is needed to identify distinct units within the ritual, intra-ritual reference and ritual self-reference (within the canonical dimension) form the minimal meaningfulness to be accepted in a formal representation of ritual that abstracts from collateral aspects of meaning. With reference to ritual theories proposed by Frits Staal, Roy A. Rappaport and Maurice Bloch, we briefly review different cases of ritual self-reference, especially in the canonical dimension, not so much from the perspective of the extended metaphor of language, nor from the perspective of the extended metaphor of biology, but rather from the perspective of formal systems. These cases include forms of “level-crossing self-referential loops” of which we argue that they are crucial both for the minimal meaningfulness of ritual and for its becoming an entity with virtual causality (beyond the virtual causality generated in the performance dimension). In the presence of suitable agents (performers of the ritual) this virtual causality can have a wide range of real-life results that vary from transformations in identity and changes or modifications of one’s social role, to increased consumption and political activism.

In recent studies we have found that the early date – before Pāṇini (ca. 350 B.C.E.) – and the oral nature of the word-by-word or pada-pāṭha version of major Vedic texts, are well established on account of textual, inscriptional, and script-historical evidence. The Vedic pada-pāṭha, which marks the division into words and analyses the mutual phonetic influence of these words, appears to be a competitive alternative, within a strictly oral memory culture, that exhibits important qualities inherent in the text transmission in cultures of writing in syllabic or near-alphabetic scripts. Familiarity of “western” vaidikas, directly or through their Iranian (Avestan) neighbours, with a script such as ancient Aramaic is possible from the eighth century B.C.E. and inescapable from the sixth, when cuneiform old Persian came also into use in the Persian empire. Knowledge of these scripts implies first a confrontation with and next a familiarity with the marking (a) of the division of the linguistic chain into words, and, (b) of phonetic features of these words.
This provides a partial explanation for a remarkable solidity of the Vedic tradition from ca. the sixth century B.C.E., since an alphabetic or consistently syllabic nature of the still not yet convincingly deciphered Indus script seems now quite unlikely. The fixity provided by the resulting pada-plus-saṃhitā transmission of texts was, as technical requirement, at the basis of the transition from a family and clan oriented parallel transmission of Vedic texts and rituals into an amalgamation of family traditions and a simultaneous functional and geographic diversification into Vedas and further into Śākhās. Before the major landmark of the adoption of the pada-plus-saṃhitā transmission – unique for the Vedic tradition because the Avesta has only pada-pāṭha like characteristics for which it is more likely that they derive directly from early attempts to write down the main texts in a syllabic or near-alphabetic script – we have to assume, first, that the Vedic tradition was somewhat more flexible and receptive, horizontally, between branches and more appreciative of change, vertically, over time, against the background of a continuity over the generations of the art of poetic creation (a situation which corresponds with the self-image of Vedic poets as found in Vedic hymns), and, second, that other factors contributed to its continuity, especially the robustness of the ritual.
From geographical references in the oldest of the Vedic texts, the Rgveda, and especially from its references to rivers and mountains, it is clear that the poets associated with its hymns are to be located, long before our landmark of pada-plus-saṃhitā transmission (tentatively, the sixth century B.C.E.), in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent, in an area that corresponds to large parts of current day Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-west India. The Rgveda and the Yajurvedic texts and the ritual system they presuppose are thoroughly agro-pastoral in character. Since agro-pastoralism is basically expansive in character and requires an ecological environment which it tends to transform in the course of time, these two data provide us with important chronological and geographical parameters that can be matched not only with dispersed textual testimonies but also with paleoecological findings on the historical and pre-historical presence of forests and cultivated areas and on population ratios in the entire northern part of the Indian subcontinent, from Afghanistan via Kurukṣetra to the Gangatic plains and Magadha. Some evidence is already available, and feasible investigations can be defined that can be expected to provide further crucial (paleoecological) evidence.
The next major stage is the development of Jainism and Buddhism in the sixth – fifth century B.C.E., which presuppose an already transformed, agricultural and largely urbanized environment in (Greater) Magadha. The early development of the last of the major Vedic divisions to become independent, the Atharvavedic branches – which, unlike their Yajurvedic and Sāmavedic predecessors, do not get a chance to develop completely before they are almost entirely swept away by new ecological and religious developments – lays in between these two, and shows not only evidence of a largely agricultural environment, but also of a general resource crunch: Brahmins who have given up an earlier semi-nomadic life-style in favour of a more settled one are experiencing increased difficulties to find stable niches for survival. In several other cases judgements can be made on the chronological relation between (a) a node of differentiation in the development from a unified collection – with fuzzy edges – of (pre-) “Rg-vedic” hymns for different families, to the four Vedas and their canonized branches, (b) major historical textual landmarks (such as: the adoption of a pada-plus-saṁhitā from ca. the sixth century B.C.E.; testimonies in Pāṇini’s work and that of his commentators; the – relatively late – shift to writing, etc.), and (c) major, in principle tangible, landmarks in the ecological and economical history of South Asia. The new perspective developed here has implications for understanding the texts and for the principles to be followed in editing them.

In this article I investigate the complex relation between certain Vedic texts (among them the “riddle hymn,” RV 1.164), a Vedic ritual, viz., the Pravargya, and the period of study of its mantras for which the Vedic student has to undergo a specific initiation, the Avantaradiksa. My starting point is the intimate relation between RV 1.164 and the Pravargya. The view that the Pravargya itself is celebrated (or was originally celebrated) within the period of Veda study by the student, current in secondary literature, is to be rejected. The results of our study are confronted with some recent theories on rituals, intitiation and riddles. At the end we can deduce some conclusions regarding the transmission of Vedic texts in ancient India, and regarding the method of their reconstitution in modern times.

Jan E.M. Houben, “The Sanskrit Tradition.” In: The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Tradition (W. van Bekkum, Jan E.M. Houben, Ineke Sluiter, Kees Versteegh), pp. 49-145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997.
At an early stage the Sanskrit religious, philosophical and scientific tradition was confronted with problems of meaning, especially with regard to the sacred texts at its root: the Vedas. Here we take 'Semantics' in the general sense of "the study and representation of the meaning of language expressions, and the relationships of meaning among them" (Allan. 1992:394). We identify a number of landmarks in the history of Indian semantic thought: remarkable and significant “watersheds” after which thought is no more the same as before. On some points our study needs to be updated, for instance regarding the relationship between Sanskrit, its several varieties, interrelated dialects and other languages: "Linguistic Paradox and Diglossia: the emergence of Sanskrit and Sanskritic language in Ancient India" www.degruyter.com/view/j/opli.2018.4.issue-1/opli-2018-0001/opli-2018-0001.xml?format=INT
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0001

This study identifies eight landmarks in the emergence of semantics in the Sanskrit tradition that deserve to be the subject of as many research projects designed to arrive at a sharper picture of these crucial episodes in the history of Indian thought with regards to their antecedents, circumstances and influence on later developments. That the Sanskrit philosophical and linguistic tradition contains material which is relevant for modern discussions on linguistic and philosophical semantics, or even that the Sanskrit tradition has important 'original' contributions to make to these discussions, has been emphasized by several authors familiar with both areas. However, although some important beginnings have been made, it will be safe to say that the 'study of semantics in the Sanskrit tradition' has still a long way to go before it will reach maturity. In the first place, we still need proper editions and translations of many basic texts of the different periods in this tradition; in the second place, even though a considerable number of texts are already available at least in a provisionally acceptable form, there is no framework of an outline of historical developments in which each text could find its place. The observations I make in this paper are an outcome of my study of some grammarians and philosophers in the Sanskrit tradition, and more specifically of my work in a research project on The emergence of semantics in four linguistic traditions. A volume with this title, in which four authors (W. van Bekkum, I. Sluiter, and K. Versteegh, Jan E.M. Houben) deal with the emergence of semantics in the Hebrew, Greek-Latin, Arab, and Sanskrit tradition, has appeared in the series Studies in the History of the Linguistic Sciences (van Bekkum, Houben, Sluiter, Versteegh, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997).
Semantics is taken in the very general sense of -- to quote Keith Allan's definition in the Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford 1992 -- “the study and representation of the meaning of language expressions, and the relationships of meaning among them” (Allan 1992: 394).

“Structures, Events and Ritual Practice in the Rg-Veda :
The Gharma and Atri’s Rescue by the Aśvins.”
In: Language, Ritual and Poetics in Ancient India and Iran:
Studies in honor of Shaul Migron (ed. David Shulman) : 87-135.
Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 2010.

In the recent translation published by Jamison and Brereton, Jamison mentions the present study but does not
adress any of the arguments (The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Vols. I-III.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). The problems in Jamison's interpretation of hymns such as RV 8.73 and in the translation
of hiména in RV 8.73.3 as "with snow" rather than "during the winter" remain therefore unresolved. 

This paper deals with a complex problem of interpretation regarding an
event referred to in various brief statements dispersed in the Rg-Veda
(RV): Atri’s rescue by the twin gods, the Aśvins. What makes it so
difficult to resolve is the simultaneous involvement of several problem
areas, each bearing a number of variables and uncertain factors.
Interpretational decisions in one area have immediate implications for
the others, so that if we insist on regularity and structure in one area, we
must, so it seems, accept some irregularity in another, and vice versa.

The first area is language. We would like to see structure and regularity
in the morphology, syntax and semantics of the relevant passages.
However, we must take into account that a poet may make intentional
deviations from the standard in order to achieve certain effects.

Next, there is myth. Here, again, we would like to see harmony and regularity
in the statements found in diverse hymns in the Rg-Veda,
and we would like to be able to reconstruct a relatively unitary underlying story
or myth on their basis. But here, again, a poet may modify a received
story or deviate from a standard myth – assuming the poet refers to an
event on the basis of story or myth, and not on the basis of having been
directly involved in it. These are the two areas on which interpreters
of the RV have focused their attention in the last century and half or
so, also with regard to Atri and the Aśvins.
A third relevant area, that of ritual practice, has largely been neglected in this context.
A critical reconsideration of all three areas and their interrelationships will lead
to a new interpretation and evaluation of the Rg-Vedic story of Atri and
the Aśvins.

This article discusses critically earlier interpretations, including the one proposed by
Stephanie Jamison in her well-researched and stimulating study The Ravenous Hyenas and the Wounded Sun: Myth and
Ritual in Ancient India. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Within a strictly RV context this interpretation
remains incoherent and it cannot be maintained unless by invoking statements from much later texts, especially the
Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa.

According to Ferdinand de Saussure, "the linguistic entity is not accurately defined until it is delimited, i.e. separated from everything that surrounds it on the phonic chain" (Saussure 1916: 145 [103]). However, what are the units to be isolated? The question is important, pragmatically, for anyone trying to learn an entirely new language from the speakers of that language. And it is of crucial theoretical importance for anyone setting out to describe, analyse and study a language.
Just as the use of language to communicate is a universal human feature, the problem of delimiting the units of language can be considered a universal problem in reflection about language. It may therefore be of interest to see how the problem was perceived and dealt with in an entirely different cultural and intellectual environment than that of early and modern Western linguistics.
Bhartrhari's work the Vakyapadlya is definitely the oldest and it is moreover the only work for which the problem of the nature of words and sentences forms the main subject. In order to have a good basis for theoretical evaluations of early Indian discussions on this problem, it is therefore expedient to start with this older and more elaborate source. In the present paper, the aim will not be to arrive at a final evaluation of Bhartrhari's theory, but rather to arrive at a better understanding of his argument and position.

There is a simple principle which pervades the whole of the Vākyapadīya (short: VP, which will usually mean in this article: the Vākyapadīya-kārikās, or VP-kārikās). It is reflected in its structure from beginning to end, and finds sometimes more explicit expression in specific kārikās, The principle is that, in a very fundamental way, the
validity of different perspectives is accepted. Throughout the Vākyapadīya, different viewpoints are discussed in their mutual opposition and complementariness. Sometimes the viewpoints are simply enumerated. Sometimes Bhartrhari adds a statement of what would be acceptable from two opposed points of view. Sometimes he has an undeniable preference for one view or the other. And sometimes he seems to develop “his
own” view by integrating the opposed views of other thinkers. But even if he prefers one view or develops a new synthesis, others are not totally discarded. His preferences are generally pronounced against the back-ground of a relativizing attitude. With this approach Bhartrhari differs from the familiar, more openly polemic approach in Indian philosophical works in which other systems are unequivocally refuted and one's own system is defended.
In one form or the other, the principle, which may be called “perspectivism,” has been acknowledged by several scholars. They were confronted with it, had to recognize it, and struggled with it in search of Bhartrhari's “own view” and his own philosophical system.
The precise role and importance of “perspectivism” in Bhartrhari's philosophy are yet to be determined. In the present article, apart from mentioning a few relatively simple instances of Bhartrhari’s perpectivism, I will analyze and study three more complex and partly problematic cases in the first kāṇḍa or book of Bhartrhari's  Vākyapadīya.

Colloque : Le Someil et les Rêves dans le monde indien – colloque international, Paris, 5 – 7 avril 2004. This is the author's version of an article on the practice of Vedic chanting for a certain purpose and on 'magic', 'superstition', 'psychology' and (pre-scientific) 'science'. It appeared in : The Indian Night: Sleep and Dream in Indian Culture (sous la dir. de Claudine Bautze-Picron), Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2009 pp. 37-63. (The layout has been slightly changed in the printed version ; in the present version I have added references to Zimmermann and Gerritsen and made a few corrections. I thank Ashok Aklujkar for his comments on an earlier version of this article.)

Just as strings of by themselves meaningless phonemes may have a capacity for linguistic meaning, like that ritual may be meaningless from one perspective and meaningful from another. In language we have a good idea of types of meaning which are to be expected at different organizational levels. Words are generally regarded as meaningful units, and so are sentences and syntagmas, but also many morphemes. Phonemes are distinctive but not independently meaningful, unless they happen to coincide with a morpheme or word. The meaningfulness of sentences is generally thought of as being derived from the meaning of the constituent words, but some theories want to have it the other way round and state that the meaning of the word is derived from the meaning of the sentence or utterance. 
In Vedic ritual, however, we still have hardly any idea what kind of organizational levels and functional units there are in between the most basic acts and utterances, and the complex performance as a whole of for instance the Agniṣṭoma. A large ritual will hence appear as an amorphous mass of acts. In his arguments for seeing ritual as meaningless, Frits Staal (1989: 186f) used the example of the Nihnavana rite, which is a small element in the Agniṣṭoma and in other, more complex Soma-sacrifices. According to Staal the Nihnavana is an entirely meaningless act.  It can be demonstrated that its meaninglessness results from strictly isolating it from its context. A different presentation of this rite – making use of recent videoregistrations of a Soma-sacrifice – and some basic background information on Vedic ritual which every performer may be expected to be familiar with (also known to Staal, 1989: 116) show that performers must have generally experienced it as clearly significant.  On the basis of this demonstration it is argued that different organizational levels are to be distinguished in Vedic ritual, and that meaningfulness or meaninglessness of an element in the ritual is not an ontological problem but a matter of seeing that element at an appropriate level in relation with other elements of the same level. This finding suits a general theory of ritual structure and ritual meaning as propounded recently by Rappaport (1999).

A B S T R A C T Enthusiasm for one's own favourite political, economic or religious ideology, may inspire a total commitment to spread and make prosper this preferred ideology and, if possible, to make it obtain an absolute victory. What may disappear in that case is the 'ideodiversity' which was the very precondition for conceiving and developing the now victorious ideology, and which will always be needed as a source of adjustments, correctives and alternatives when local or global conditions evolve. Uploaded is here the abstract in three languages of the article that has recently appeared in the Journal Eadem utraque Europa : revista de historia cultural e intelectual (published in Buenos Aires, Argentina), Año 12, No. 17, Agosto 2016, ISSN 1885-7221, pp. 11-42. The article can be briefly summarized in Sanskrit by referring to the view of Bhartrhari as formulated probably by his student: 
prajñā vivekaṁ labhate bhinnair āgama-darśanaiḥ |
kiyad vā śakyam unnetuṁ svatarkam anudhāvatā ||

Pāṇinian grammar of living Sanskrit : features and principles of the Prakriyā-Sarvasva
At around 350 B.C.E. Pāṇini composed a grammar of the language of the Vedas and the spoken high-standard language (which we now call Sanskrit) that pushed other grammatical works into oblivion. In the course of the centuries several additions and adaptations have been proposed and variously accepted in the rules and in the lists of roots and other lexical items. This gave rise to different forms and interpretations of Pāṇini’s grammar, and also to grammars that appeared under a new title even if they are largely derived from and inspired by Pāṇini’s grammar. Among the available versions, the little-known Prakriyā-sarvasva by the brilliant and versatile author Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa of Melputtūr (17th century) is at least as comprehensive as the well-known Pāṇinian grammar of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, the Siddhānta-kaumudī, but significantly differs from it in both method and substance, even if both remain within the framework of Pāṇini’s system. The Prakriyā-Sarvasva provides many novel perspectives on theoretical issues in Pāṇinian grammar and represents a much neglected pragmatic approach (in contra-distinction to the exegetic approach of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita). Since its object is Sanskrit as used and acceepted not only by the three sages – Pāṇini, Kātyāyana and Patañjali – but also by later authors of the Sanskrit tradition, it can be justly regarded as a Pāṇinian grammar of living Sanskrit. Three different dimensions of the Prakriyā-Sarvasva confirm this: the features of the grammar, which, like the Siddhānta-Kaumudī, is a re-ordered version of Pāṇini’s grammar; the principles of the grammar as explained and illustrated in a special section of the grammar; the defence, in a brief treatise, of the basic principles against other grammarians.

For many centuries the killing of animals in Vedic rituals has been an ethical problem quite peculiar to South Asia and to the Vedic and Sanskritic-Prakritic tradition. Nevertheless, there are indeed several more universal sides to it.
In this essay I adopt a special angle of approach and limit my subject in several ways. To start with the latter, one limitation is that I will be especially interested in how philosophers in the South Asian classical philosophical systems (mainly up to the 16th century) have dealt with this problem. What ancient Vedic authors, and non-philosophical or less philosophically inclined authors, have said about this subject has already been frequently studied and discussed by several scholars. Another limitation is that, among the philosophical systems, I will focus mainly on Samkhya and Vedanta. The position taken by Mimamsa with regard to the problem of killing animals, in opposition mainly with Buddhists and Jainas, has been discussed quite extensively by Wilhelm Halbfass (esp. 1991), who also tried to spell out some general implications for Hinduism. Philosophers of the remaining two orthodox Brahminical systems, Vaisesika and Nyaya, seem to have been caught in the Mimamsa vs. Buddhist and Jaina controversy and sided, as far as the problem of killing sacrificial animals is concerned, mainly with Mimamsa.
Because of the crucial importance of the perspectives resulting from one's own school's position and the environment, a comprehensive history of South Asian philosophy including ethics, cannot afford to look only at the history of ideas and arguments: it should pay considerable attention to these perspectives and how they are historically situated. Within this approach one may indeed be confronted with more specific problems which deserve to be studied in the single dimension of the history of ideas. One may speak of a perspectivistic-historical approach, which does not oppose but underlies a history-of-ideas approach with its more restricted scope.
As for the concrete problem discussed here: in many Vedic rituals, especially the larger ones, the killing of one or more victims (mostly non-human animals, occasionally humans) is prescribed. The Vedic ritualistic system, as we know it from the ancient sources such as the Brahmanas and Srauta-Sutras, shows a certain ambivalence in this regard: on the one hand, killing is important, and it is even central in the sacrifice; on the other hand, acts of violence are avoided, concealed, and denied. A real problem arises when the two poles of this ambivalence become so strong that they become irreconcilable.
With some generalization -- hence unavoidably with some distortion – it can be said that in the text material reviewed sacrificial violence is initially criticized by appeals to reason and references to extra-Vedic principles (e.g. the 'Golden Rule'), and defended by traditionalism, i.e., by references to authoritative texts and 'rational' defenses of the irrational validity of tradition. In the course of time, even the Brahminical-Hindu criticism is absorbed within the fold of traditionalism, and supported with the help of authoritative references and interpretive reasoning. The denial or non-perception of violence is justified more by traditionalization (the 'rational' defence of the irrational authority and validity of the tradition) than by rationalization.
Although the scope of this essay is limited by its focus on just a part of all possibly relevant sources (viz. Brahminical philosophers, especially Samkhya and Vedanta), the material reviewed is sufficient to show that neither a one-dimensional historical approach, nor an ahistorical perspectivist approach can do justice to it. An argument is neither to be understood only in an 'orthogenetic' relation with previous and later arguments, nor only in the context of an ahistorical system of philosophical perspectives. The value of the classical (and pre-classical, as far as it is reflected in e.g. the Mahabharata) Samkhya argument against sacrificial violence is quite different from the, in outer appearance similar, argument of the 'subjugated' Samkhya of Vijnanabhiksu. Moreover, the classical Samkhya position appears different depending on how one evaluates the ancient view that the sacrificed animal goes to heaven: Samkhya is either rational and progressive vis-a-vis the irrationality and conservatism of the tradition, or it fosters an emotionalism vis-a-vis the knowledge of reality imbued in the traditional rituals. Again, the contrast between the grammarian Bhartrhari's acceptance of sacrificial violence and the grammarian Nagesa's rejection of it, is to be seen against the background of their quite different philosophical and cultural surroundings.
Whatever one's own position in these matters may be – the urgency of modern ecological and social problems will prevent anyone from advocating the thoughtless continuation of behavioral patterns stemming from the Stone Age – if one wants to understand the position of others, including former authors on the subject, the framework of a perspectivistic-historical approach recommends itself for dealing in a balanced way with the complexities involved.
From the general introduction to the volume by Houben and van Kooij:
South Asia has gone a way of its own in the course of millennia of dealing with problems of violence, its avoidance and management.
Even for those not having a direct involvement with the area, there can be several reasons to take an interest in South Asian ways of thinking about and dealing with violence, to the understanding or at least awareness of which the present volume wants to make a modest contribution.
[1] One reason may be a curiosity to see how the universal problems referred to are dealt with in a specific cultural area, perhaps with the hope to find suggestions to improve the (make-shift) solutions which are usually offered.
[2] Another reason can be that some complex ideas with deep roots in South Asian cultural history have already become globalized: here we may think especially of the notion of 'non-violence' as it was given concrete shape by Mahatma Gandhi (who was inspired by different strands in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, but also by some Western ideas, and especially by the Russian author Tolstoy—the latter being in turn partly inspired by South Asian ideas e.g. as expressed in Tibetan Buddhism) and taken up far outside South Asia by persons like Martin Luther King.
[3] A third reason presents itself now:
So far it was necessary for countries all over the world to be well aware of Western ideas on violence, non-violence and justifications of violence because of the powerful means (military and economic) at the disposal of the U.S.A. and other Western countries to force their view (e.g. on human rights and free trade) on others. The atomic bomb testing last year by two countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan [resp. on 11-13 and on 28-30 May 1998], has made it more clear than ever that understanding South Asian ideas on these subjects is not just of great importance for a succesful 'stress management' in this area, but also for avoiding world-wide calamities which may ensue if this management is not entirely succesful. Decisions taken in both countries are not only guided by 'Western' rationalities but also by rationalities which are, especially in India, well entrenched in South Asia's cultural past.

Contribution au Colloque international « Antoine-Léonard de Chézy et les débuts des études sanskrites en Europe », Paris BNF, 11-12 juin 2015. Résumé (in French) plus Sangrahah (in Sanskrit).
Revisiter Antoine-Léonard de Chézy (1773-1832), son contexte et son œuvre, c’est revisiter les débuts de l’étude et de l’enseignement du sanskrit, à une époque où la France et l’Europe étaient de plus en plus passionnées par la découverte et par l’exploration des nouveaux mondes. Par la découverte et la maîtrise des autres grandes langues du monde (bhūbhāṣā), l’arabe, le chinois et le sanskrit, l'aube d'une nouvelle Renaissance, une Renaissance Orientale  (prācya punarujjīvana), qui continuait la première, était perçue, une Renaissance qui serait un prolongement naturel et une extension de l'humanisme de la première Renaissance. Mais c’est déjà lors de la vie de Chézy, que nous voyons les débuts d’un autre Orientalisme, un Orientalisme scientifique qui faisait partie, à ce moment-là, du nouveau comparatisme indo-européen et qui allait évincer en juste deux décennies la Renaissance Orientale.
Dans ce contexte, quel était le projet de recherche d’Antoine-Léonard de Chézy, qui occupait la chaire de Sans-krit fondée à Paris en novembre 1814 (discours inaugural le 16 janvier 1815)? Dans les deux siècles après Chézy, ses idéaux de recherche ont-ils été réalisés ou détournés ou oubliés ?

RESUMO: Junto a outras línguas clássicas como o latim, o grego, o hebreu, o árabe e o chinês, o sânscrito tem um importante papel a desempenhar no desenvolvimento de um novo humanismo, global e integrativo. É uma das poucas línguas antigas que tem uma evolução contínua e tradição que se estende aos dias de hoje. Esse artigo discute algumas ideias importantes relativas à natureza e à história do sânscrito, as quais têm aparecido na literatura dos últimos 20 anos. Ao fazer isso, o artigo também levanta questões que, não obstante seu caráter controverso, revelam-se cruciais no que diz respeito ao entendimento da linguagem em geral, da variação e de processos de troca entre diferentes culturas.
ABSTRACT: Next to other classical languages such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabian and Chinese, the Sanskrit language has an important role to play in the development of a new, global, integrative humanism. It is one among the very few ancient languages with a continuous evolution and tradition that extends to the present day. This paper discusses some key ideas concerning the nature and the history of Sanskrit that have appeared in the literature of the last 20 years. By doing so it also raises what are still controversial but crucial questions concerning our understanding of languages in general, of linguistic variation, and cultural exchange processes.

Author’s copy with Postcript 2015.
A systematic comparison of Bhartrhari with especially de Saussure is useful, because de Saussure expresses bv way of the Cours de Linguistique Générale (Course in General Linguistics) many ideas that still form to a considerable extent the methodological basis of modern linguistics. As N.C.W. Spence once observed: « it can be said that ‘we are all Saussureans now’ ».
The ancient Indian grammarian-philosopher Bhartrhari is aware of a linear (and hence sequential) mental signifier, but emphasizes its underlying sequencelessness. His discussion adds important refinements (based on subtle psycho-linguistic observations) to de Saussure’s analysis of the signifier and its linearity. A problem in the formulation in de Saussure’s Cours perceived by A. Henry is absent in Bhartrhari’s presentation.
Postscript: Bhartrhari's linguistic views, even though in some points parallel with Saussure's theory, leave no room for the presence of a ‘structure given beforehand’ in Sanskrit, inspite of what one might expect on the basis of the oft-cited words of Sir William Jones (1786): « The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure ».

Underlying contemporaneous discussions in Pāṇinian studies, a cluster of methodological and theoretical choices can be discerned which merit further critical reflection. Notably, a critical consideration of three dominant "myths" in modern Pāṇinian studies is required: (1) Pāṇini's grammar is a powerful, purely formal system; (2) Pāṇini's grammar as a purely descriptive grammar; (3) A well-defined object-language is given in advance. The starting point for the issues and the "myths" considered here is a review of the work Recent Research in Pāṇinian Studies (RRiPS) by George Cardona, who "has again obliged all serious students of Pāṇini and the Pāṇinīyas by offering them another important research tool." More particularly, comments are given on three issues in Pāṇinian studies: (A) The view propounded by S.D. Joshi and J.A.F. Roodbergen (1983), and later on defended by P. Kiparsky (1991), that, in the words of George Cardona (1999: 113), "Pāṇini's original grammar dealt only with the formation of padas in utterances," while "the sections of rules dealing with taddhita affixation and compound formation constitute later additions.". (B) P. Kiparsky's thesis that in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the terms vā, vibhāṣā and anyatarasyām refer to different kinds of option, whose distinctions were already lost sight of in the earliest commentarial tradition. (C) The problem of the authorship of the Vrtti on Bhartrhari's Vākyapadīya.
As for Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, it is argued that it is not well characterized as "synthetic" (or "generative"): it is rather, more modestly, a "reconstitutive" grammar.

"For many centuries the killing of animals in Vedic rituals has been an ethical problem quite peculiar to South Asia and to the Vedic and Sanskritic-Prakritic tradition. Nevertheless, there are indeed several more universal sides to it.
In this essay I adopt a special angle of approach and limit my subject in several ways. To start with the latter, one limitation is that I will be especially interested in how philosophers in the South Asian classical philosophical systems (mainly up to the 16th century) have dealt with this problem. What ancient Vedic authors, and non-philosophical or less philosophically inclined authors, have said about this subject has already been frequently studied and discussed by several scholars. Another limitation is that, among the philosophical systems, I will focus mainly on Samkhya and Vedanta. The position taken by Mimamsa with regard to the problem of killing animals, in opposition mainly with Buddhists and Jainas, has been discussed quite extensively by Wilhelm Halbfass (esp. 1991), who also tried to spell out some general implications for Hinduism. Philosophers of the remaining two orthodox Brahminical systems, Vaisesika and Nyaya, seem to have been caught in the Mimamsa vs. Buddhist and Jaina controversy and sided, as far as the problem of killing sacrificial animals is concerned, mainly with Mimamsa.
Because of the crucial importance of the perspectives resulting from one's own school's position and the environment, a comprehensive history of South Asian philosophy including ethics, cannot afford to look only at the history of ideas and arguments: it should pay considerable attention to these perspectives and how they are historically situated. Within this approach one may indeed be confronted with more specific problems which deserve to be studied in the single dimension of the history of ideas. One may speak of a perspectivistic-historical approach, which does not oppose but underlies a history-of-ideas approach with its more restricted scope.
As for the concrete problem discussed here: in many Vedic rituals, especially the larger ones, the killing of one or more victims (mostly non-human animals, occasionally humans) is prescribed. The Vedic ritualistic system, as we know it from the ancient sources such as the Brahmanas and Srauta-Sutras, shows a certain ambivalence in this regard: on the one hand, killing is important, and it is even central in the sacrifice; on the other hand, acts of violence are avoided, concealed, and denied. A real problem arises when the two poles of this ambivalence become so strong that they become irreconcilable.
With some generalization -- hence unavoidably with some distortion – it can be said that in the text material reviewed sacrificial violence is initially criticized by appeals to reason and references to extra-Vedic principles (e.g. the 'Golden Rule'), and defended by traditionalism, i.e., by references to authoritative texts and 'rational' defenses of the irrational validity of tradition. In the course of time, even the Brahminical-Hindu criticism is absorbed within the fold of traditionalism, and supported with the help of authoritative references and interpretive reasoning. The denial or non-perception of violence is justified more by traditionalization (the 'rational' defence of the irrational authority and validity of the tradition) than by rationalization.
Although the scope of this essay is limited by its focus on just a part of all possibly relevant sources (viz. Brahminical philosophers, especially Samkhya and Vedanta), the material reviewed is sufficient to show that neither a one-dimensional historical approach, nor an ahistorical perspectivist approach can do justice to it. An argument is neither to be understood only in an 'orthogenetic' relation with previous and later arguments, nor only in the context of an ahistorical system of philosophical perspectives. The value of the classical (and pre-classical, as far as it is reflected in e.g. the Mahabharata) Samkhya argument against sacrificial violence is quite different from the, in outer appearance similar, argument of the 'subjugated' Samkhya of Vijnanabhiksu. Moreover, the classical Samkhya position appears different depending on how one evaluates the ancient view that the sacrificed animal goes to heaven: Samkhya is either rational and progressive vis-a-vis the irrationality and conservatism of the tradition, or it fosters an emotionalism vis-a-vis the knowledge of reality imbued in the traditional rituals. Again, the contrast between the grammarian Bhartrhari's acceptance of sacrificial violence and the grammarian Nagesa's rejection of it, is to be seen against the background of their quite different philosophical and cultural surroundings.
Whatever one's own position in these matters may be – the urgency of modern ecological and social problems will prevent anyone from advocating the thoughtless continuation of behavioral patterns stemming from the Stone Age – if one wants to understand the position of others, including former authors on the subject, the framework of a perspectivistic-historical approach recommends itself for dealing in a balanced way with the complexities involved."

"This powerpoint explores a Cultural Evolution perspective on Vedic ritual. It was presented at the Third International Vedic Workshop, Leiden 2002.  See further (a) my article "Memetics of Vedic Ritual, Morphology of the Agnistoma", in The Vedas: Texts, Language & Ritual; Proceedings of the Third International Vedic Workshop, Leiden 2002 (ed. A. Griffiths & J. Houben): 385-415. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 2004; (b) my Introduction to these Proceedings. The references in the Bibliography at the end are used in article (a); references in blue have been added later.

For several millennia the Vedic ritual system – including the Agnistoma on which I will focus here – has been of great direct and indirect importance in the cultural history of the Indian subcontinent and neighbouring areas such as Indonesia and mainland South-East Asia. As such, it forms a cultural phenomenon of exceptional extension and complexity. The study and criticism of Vedic ritual were underlying in the development, more than two millennia ago, of disciplines such as grammar, phonology, and metrics ; through the centuries and in fact till the present day Vedic ritual has provided symbols of social status and political power ; it still provides a large amount of prayers and ritual models in modern Hinduism, and it provided starting points for antagonism to Buddhism and Jainism, both of which retained many of its structures, ideas, and presuppositions even when offering their criticism. Some may evaluate the place and function of Vedic ritual in the modern world, whatever is left of it, negatively, as many people in- and outside India do; some may evaluate its place and function positively, as many people in- and outside India do. Some may see it as a tenacious social disease; others as a blessing of the highest order reaching us from ancient Seers. In either case the phenomenon needs to be understood more properly. How to come to grips, in theoretical terms, with this extraordinary cultural phenomenon in all its dimensions? The following powerpoint presents a study which makes no use of the factor "genetics" but instead analyzes the phenomenon in the perspective of Cultural Evolution in terms of memetics and memory culture.

The Cultural Evolution perspective on Vedic ritual turns out to be remarkably suitable to come to grips with aspects which till now remained out of focus in research dealing with Vedism and Vedic ritual. En passant, three open issues in the memetic approach are adressed.

Richard DAWKINS admitted of two problems in his meme-theory: (A) it is not clear what a single-unit meme consists of (1989: 195: "I have said a tune is one meme, but what about a symphony: how many memes is that?"); (B) the copying-fidelity of his main examples is not very convincing (tunes, ideas, fashions often get much distorted in the process of transmission, DAWKINS 1989: 194f).
...
(C) Moreover, AUNGER (2000: 224) observed: "Unfortunately, the central claim – that a 'memes' eye view' exists – has not yet been proven."
...

Vedic ritual as understood so far offers convincing answers to all of these crucial open issues.

(A) Making use of Dawkins' concepts, Vedic ritual can be viewed as a meme-complex or cluster of co-adapted meme-complexes succesfully surviving over millennia.  The BASIC UNIT OF REPLICATION, so difficult to identify in other cultural phenomena subjected to a memetic approach, must be localized in the MANTRA, where the Vedic mantra is to be characterized as an utterance implying a ritual act (rite). Just as the chemical structures of DNA that constitute the gene function as gene only in the proper context (RNA etc. in cells), the mantra functions as "meme" only in the context of suitable agents: persons with suitable preparation and status. While the gene is by far the "fittest" survivor in 3.000.000.000 years of life on earth, the Vedic mantra as meme is an extremely "fit" survivor in more than 3.000 years of human culture. These 3.000 years concern a period for which we have a large amount of direct data: a large number of the Vedic texts presently available have undergone only marginal modifications since their composition some 1000 or 1500 before common era (BCE). Some of the techniques conserved in Vedic ritual go back to a much earlier time, for instance the technique of making fire. There are well-attested "shorter term" Darwinian processes which are on a directly comparable scale with these 3.000 and (more than) 5.000 years of memetic evolution in Indo-Iranian and Vedic ritual; for instance, the hereditary distinction lactose-tolerance vs.  intolerance in humans arose 'only' ca. 10.000 years ago when dairy-farming was developed and practiced in some areas but not in others (DURHAM 1991 chapter 5; ODLING-SMEE 1994: 167).

(B) The unconvincing copying fidelity of the examples Dawkins and others could think of contrasts sharply with the extensively ATTESTED HIGH COPYING FIDELITY of the transmission in the Vedic knowledge system.

(C) Finally, with regard to the question whether a "memes' eye view" exists: if we see Vedic mantras as memes, THE VIEWPOINT OF THE MEMES HAS ALREADY BEEN personified and GIVEN A VOICE some millennia ago when the Vedas, the collections of utterances implying ritual acts, are made to address the Brahmin, knower of the Veda, thus:
"protect me, I – the knowledge of the Vedas – am your treasure; do not proclaim me to the envious, the unstraightforward, the undisciplined; this way I can become strong. ... To protect your treasure, o Brahmin, proclaim me only to the one whom you know to be pure, focused, intelligent, following the life-rules of a Vedic student, and who is never hostile towards you."

Although in the past decades memetics did not come off the ground as an indepedent domain of research in spite of promising beginnings, memetic concepts remain useful and revealing in a Cultural Evolution perspective on Vedic ritual. "

... AV Atharva-Veda-Samhita (Saunaka); ed. R. Roth, WD Whitney and M. Lindenau, Bonn 31966; tr. WD Whitney, HOS 7-8, 1905; partly tr. M. Bloomfield, SBE 42, 1879. BSS Baudhayana-Srauta-SOtra; ed. W. Caland, Calcutta, I 1904, II 1907, III 1913. ...

... authors (several of whom wrote their paper before the project of the book had started ... turning the other cheek'): it even provides' non-violent'methods for protection against the ... his assassination in 1948, with as a most unequivocal contrapunto India's atomic bomb testings, now ...

Students study the Rig Veda (here the first hymn to Agni 'Fire') in Barsi, Maharashtra, in the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram. The setting is somewhat formal, with the students introducing themselves first to the teacher before the actual repetition starts. The continuous text (samhita) is here learned and repeated paadashah 'foot by foot', the sandhi between the paadas is resolved. Intended public: students in Indology, Indian Studies, Ritual Studies, History of Education. With thanks to Pdt. Dixit Vijay N. Manerikar and students and to the staff of the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram, Barsi. Filmed by Jan Houben, February 2002.

Pre-dawn study of the Saamaveda by Pdt. Mukund R. Joshi and students in Barsi, Maharashtra, in the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram. A few days before the performance of one of the major forms of the Soma-ritual, the Atyagnistoma, the Saaman practiced here is the Mahavaisvanaravratam-Saaman. Having arrived in the Barsi Ashram the day before in order to study and film the upcoming Atyagnistoma, I was woken up by the sound of the chant which gave me an experience that evoked William Wordsworth's lines "... And heard that instant in an unknown tongue, Which yet I understood ..."
The Vedic school followed is the rare Ranayaniya. In the planned Atyagnistoma (19-24 February 2001), Pdt. Joshi functioned as Prastotar and was in charge of singing this and other Saamans in the Pravargya that is performed on the days preceding the pressing day.
Another teacher at the Ashram, Pdt. Sunil C. Limaye (who will be Adhvaryu in the planned Atyagnistoma), explained me the general principle behind the study in early morning hours: an hour or so before sunrise is suitable for repeating what was learned up to one or two weeks ago; after breakfast the later hours in the morning are for studying entirely new matter; after lunch, the afternoon is either for repeating older chapters or for playing cricket.
For those who are still in need of a confirmation of the predominantly oral nature of Vedic education (see my articles ), the present clip provides a significant illustration. After around three minutes there is a power failure and the light goes off. Teacher and students are not in the least disturbed as they already master the text and melody by heart.
See the following moments:
minute 3:26 power failure
minute 4:25 someone brought a torch
minute 5:39 light goes on
minute 5:43 I find the button "nightshot" on my camera
On the orality of the Vedic tradition see also my studies
(1)
J.E.M. HOUBEN, 2011, « Vedic ritual as medium in ancient and pre-colonial South Asia: its expansion and survival between orality and writing », in J.E.M. HOUBEN – J.ROTARU (dir.), Veda-Vedāṅga et Avesta entre oralité et écriture. Travaux de symposium international : Le livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. Troisième édition – 20-24 septembre 2010, III/A, Bucarest, Bibliothèque de Bucarest, pp. 147-183.
(2)
« Les perfectibles (sādhyá) entre circularité et causalité du rituel védique. », in Silvia D’Intino and Caterina Guenzi (dir.), Aux Abords de la Clairière : études indiennes et comparées en l’honneur de Charles Malamoud, Turnhout, Brepols, pp. 11-43.
Intended public: students in Indology, Indian Studies, Ritual Studies, History of Education.
With thanks to the staff and students of the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram, Barsi.
Filmed by Jan Houben, February 2001.

Pre-dawn study of the Saamaveda by Pdt. Mukund R. Joshi and students in Barsi, Maharashtra, in the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram (ctd.). The millennia old Saamans (chants) practiced here are Candram, Gharmarocanam, Ausanam and Pravad-bhaargavam (first part). The matrix mantra (yoni-mantra) on which the Candram is sung is SV 1.2.2.1.3, parallel to RV 1.84.15, in the translation of Louis Renou (1969 p. 33):
"C'est là que (les sages) comprirent le nom secret de la vache de Tvastr, (qui résidait) dans la maison de la lune."
["This is where (the sages) understood the secret name of the cow of Tvastr, (who lived) in the house of the moon."]
The Vedic school followed is the rare Ranayaniya, which in its chants differs marginally from the better known school of Kauthuma, whose Samhita they share. In the planned Atyagnistoma (19-24 February 2001), Pdt. Joshi functioned as Prastotar and was in charge of singing, together with students and assistants, these and other Saamans that are employed in the Prayaniyesti (Praayaniiyaa-isti), the Atithyesti (Aatithyaa-isti) and in the Pravargya on the days preceding the pressing day.
A Western music tradition that can be to some extent compared to the Sama-Veda is Gregorian chant, in which a line from the Psalms is the basis for a chant which lengthens and occasionally modifies syllables and puts them to several notes, sung by a choir monophonically.

Intended public: students in Indology, Indian Studies, Ritual Studies, History of Education, History of Music, Ethnomusicology.
With thanks to the staff and students of the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram, Barsi. Filmed by Jan Houben, February 2001.

The Pravad-Bhaargava-Saaman, which was practiced in preceding days and weeks (see: Vedic Movie 002B: Studying SV 1.2.2.1.3 Candram ... Pravad-Bhaargavam), is here chanted in the Atyagnistoma (AAg) Soma-samsthaa (Barsi, 19-24 February 2001). Within the morphology of this complex ritual, the overall structure of which can be schematically rendered as (P(Q(RS)T)U), the immediate context of the Pravad-Bhaargava-Saaman is the Praayaniiya-Isti (Episode p15 in part P), which has its counterpart in the Udayaniiya-Isti (part U). (The Saaman chanted in the Udayaniiya-Isti and corresponding to the Pravad-Bhaargava-Saaman is the Udvad-Bhaargava-Saaman.) The Aty-Agnistoma (AAg) Soma-samsthaa is entirely parallel to the Agnistoma Soma-samsthaa (Ag), but it contains a few elements of the Sodasin Soma-samsthaa, notably the sixteenth round of Soma-offering with accompanying recitation and chant. The Aty-Agnistoma contains therefore thirteen Soma rounds: the twelve Soma-rounds of the Agnistoma plus the one which is no. sixteen in the Sodasi. The Vedic school followed by the team of Saamavedins in this performance of the Aty-Agnistoma is the rare Raanaayaniiya. The main executor in this chant of secondary (preparatory) importance in the ritual as a whole is the Udgaatar’s assistant, the Prastotar, Pdt. Mukund R. Joshi.
The matrix mantras (yoni-mantras) on which the Pravadbhaargava Saaman is sung are SV 1.6.2.2.4 = 2.4.2.7.1, 2.4.2.7.2, 2.4.2.7.1.3 (557=1152, 1153, 1154), parallel to RV 9.86.16-18 except for the beginning of 1153 and the last word of 1154.
Louis Renou (1961 p. 33) translated the first of the mentioned RV mantras and the first line of the second as follows:
"Il s'est avancé au rendez-vous d'Indra, le suc-de-soma; l'ami n'enfreint pas l'accord-verbal de l'ami.
Comme un garçon (court) avec les jeunes-filles, le soma coule avec (les eaux) dans le vase, par le chemin au cent cours.
Elles se sont avancées, vos pensées-poétiques, harmonieuses, laudatrices, célébrées dans les sessions-rituelles."
["Forward he stepped to his appointment with Indra, the soma juice; the friend does not transgress against the oral agreement with his friend.
As a young man (rushes) together with damsels, the soma flows together with (the waters) in the vessel, by the way of a hundred courses.
Forward they have come, your poetic thoughts, harmonious, laudatory, celebrated in ritual sessions."]
The chanting of this Saaman is interwoven with the main action of offering cooked rice (caru) into the fire for the specific deity of this Isti, Aditi. To be noted is the cooperation between the Saamavedins and the Adhvaryu (Pdt. Sunil C. Limaye), the Hotar (Pdt. Raghunatha N. Kale) and the Agniidh (Pdt. Santosh S. Ghotanakar).
A modern representation of Parasurama, one of the ten Avataras of Visnu, was placed behind the eastern door of the Praaciinavamsa. Since this is not prescribed in any of the Srauta-suutras and is not directly related to the Praayaniiya-Isti or to the chanting of the Saaman, I have blurred this representation except at the beginning and end of the clip.
Intended public: students in Indology, Indian Studies, Ritual Studies, History of Music, Ethnomusicology.
With thanks to Shri Narayana G. Kale and to the then staff and students (Feb. 2001) of the Shri Yogiraj Vedavigyan Ashram, Barsi.
Filmed by Jan E.M. Houben, February 2001.
Analysis and presentation by Jan E.M. Houben, Paris.

La formule de Versteegh dans les anciens mondes indien et iranien
The Versteegh formula in the ancient Indian and Iranian worlds
Jan Houben,  Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL, Paris
Paper to be presented at the
17th World Sanskrit Conference
Vancouver, 9-13 July 2018
(Section: Linguistics)

(Expanded Abstract)
(with Summary in Sanskrit संग्रहश्लोकाष्टकम्)