This document summarizes Barbara A. Holdrege's article "Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of the Body and the Study of Religion". It discusses trends in theorizing the body in the human sciences, including the lived body in philosophy, the socially informed body in social theory, and the body in feminist studies. It notes Hindu traditions provide extensive discourses of the body that can contribute to scholarship on the body in religious studies. The summary briefly outlines Holdrege's argument that Brahmanical Hinduism constitutes an "embodied community" where notions of identity are embodied through categories defined in relation to people, language, and land.
Original Description:
indology
Original Title
Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of the Body and the Study of Religion - Barbara A. Holdrege
This document summarizes Barbara A. Holdrege's article "Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of the Body and the Study of Religion". It discusses trends in theorizing the body in the human sciences, including the lived body in philosophy, the socially informed body in social theory, and the body in feminist studies. It notes Hindu traditions provide extensive discourses of the body that can contribute to scholarship on the body in religious studies. The summary briefly outlines Holdrege's argument that Brahmanical Hinduism constitutes an "embodied community" where notions of identity are embodied through categories defined in relation to people, language, and land.
This document summarizes Barbara A. Holdrege's article "Body Connections: Hindu Discourses of the Body and the Study of Religion". It discusses trends in theorizing the body in the human sciences, including the lived body in philosophy, the socially informed body in social theory, and the body in feminist studies. It notes Hindu traditions provide extensive discourses of the body that can contribute to scholarship on the body in religious studies. The summary briefly outlines Holdrege's argument that Brahmanical Hinduism constitutes an "embodied community" where notions of identity are embodied through categories defined in relation to people, language, and land.
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. 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 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/ 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 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 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 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 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 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 particular religious 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 Integral Bodies Processual Bodies Figure 1. Integral Bodies and Processual Bodies 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, the sacrifice serves as the 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, the sacrifice serves as the 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 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 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 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 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 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 / 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 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 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, 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 / 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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). 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of Hindu discourses of the 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 of Hindu discourses of the 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 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 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. 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 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 particular religious 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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; Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad 3.7.3 23. 49. In Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad 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. Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad 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. 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 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. 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 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University 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 of California Press. Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad. 1958. Brhad?ranyaka Upanisad. In V. P. Limaye and R. D. 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 378 / Barbara A. Holdrege Vadekar, eds., Eighteen principal Upanisads, 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 of California Press. 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University 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 of California Press. Dissanayake, Wimal. 1993. Body in social theory. In Thomas P. Kasulis, with Roger 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 / 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. 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 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. 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 / 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., Eighteen principal Upanisads, 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., Eighteen principal Upanisads, 301-24. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana 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. 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 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., Eighteen principal Upanisads, 325-57. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana M?ndala. 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. 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 / 383 Midgley, Mary. 1997. The soul's successors: Philosophy and the 'body.1 In Sarah Coakley, ed., Religion and the body, 53-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University 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., Eighteen principal Upanisads, 38-47. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana 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.. Eighteen principal Upanisads, 28-37. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana M?ndala. 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. 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 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. 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 I 385 Svet?svatara Upanisad. 1958. Svet?svatara Upanisad. In V. P. Limaye and R. D. Vadekar, eds., Eighteen principal Upanisads, 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, 50-61. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana M?ndala. Tambiah, Stanley J. 1973. From varna to caste through mixed unions. In Jack Goody, ed., The character of kinship, 191-229. Cambridge: Cambridge University 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. 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 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. 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