Richard K. Payne The Institute of Buddhist Studies, Graduate Theological Union
摘要
THE FOLLOWING ESSAY comprises four parts. The first explicates Frits Staal’s 1979 claim that ritual is meaningless in such a way as to create a fuller and more coherent understanding than the majority of his critics have done. Most reactions to Staal’s claim that ritual is meaningless have not only proven unproductive in terms of advancing the theory of ritual studies, but have obscured the value of his methodological contribution—the syntactic analysis of ritual activity. The second section discusses two interrelated issues: the application of the concept of syntax to ritual performance, and the utility of employing “tree diagrams”—familiar from the syntactic analysis of sentences—in developing a consistent technology for analyzing ritual activity. Briefly, the comparative study of a variety of languages has been critical to the origin of modern linguistics and to its ongoing development. In the same way comparative studies are also critical to the future development of a systematic understanding of ritual. The only way a meaningful comparative approach can be established is through the use of descriptive techniques that are systematic, detailed, and shared by researchers in the field. As a tool, the technique of tree diagramming implies certain limited, foundational theoretical assumptions, but does not necessarily entail any of the more explicit linguistic theories. The third section provides an example of the application of syntactic analysis by means of tree diagrams. The Vedic agnihotra ritual is analyzed and its structure discussed in relation to the possibility of it being the source of the Shingon homa (Jpn. goma). The fourth section outlines some of the ways in which a syntactic analysis of ritual can contribute to a cognitive theory of ritual. As a form of activity, ritual is organized in systematic ways. These systematic and generalizable organizations of activity reflect the ways in which humans generally organize activity, that is, there are cognitive correlates to the structures of organized activity.
目次
PRÉCIS I. READING STAAL I.A. Staal’s Research as Context for His Claim I.B. What Theory of Ritual Meaning Is Staal Rejecting? I.C. What Else Does Staal Say about Meaning? I.D. Correcting One Misunderstanding II. WHAT IS RITUAL SYNTAX? II.A. The Heuristics of Analogies II.B. Syntactic Analysis, Description, and Comparison II.C. Borrowing Tools: Tree Diagrams II.D. What a Syntactic Method Is Not: The Semantics of Ritual II.E. Examples of Ritual Syntax: What a Syntactic Analysis Reveals II.E.1. Embedding and Recursive Embedding II.E.2. Two Kinds of Symmetry II.E.3. Terminal Abbreviation III. APPLICATION OF SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS III.B. The Very Possibility of a Syntactic Analysis III.B. The Agnihotra in Vedic Ritual Culture III.C. Ritual Actions of the Agnihotra III.D. Structure of the Agnihotra IV. FROM RITUAL SYNTAX TO COGNITIVE THEORY IV.A. What Constitutes a Cognitive Theory of Ritual? IV.B. Approaches to Cognitive Science CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS APPENDIX NOTES
