Essentially this paper includes answering 6 short answer questions and turning it into a 4-page paper.
The questions are as follows:
1. How did yaktovil become the object of colonial/Orientalist and missionary knowledge?
2. How was this ritual later represented by postcolonial anthropology? (E.g., consider why Kapferer is wrong to say that illness caused by the yakku is a “demonic experience.” Why does this representation of ritual as a form of “communication” creates a division between subject and object?)
3. How is the “Buddhist” discourse of yakku part of a genealogy ignored by colonialism and anthropology?
4. What is the connection between the ritual and the body? (Note how the connection is defined by a network of social discourses, sensorial practices, dispositions, habitus having to do with concepts like distiya, tanikama, dosa, baya? Why do the Sinhalese not consider the body to have an essence?)
5. How does this concept of the body differ from a certain modern notion of the body?
6. And how is yaktovil part of the competing discursive “tradition” of Buddhism with concepts like anaguna, varama, etc.? (And why do the Sinhalese not consider it something opposed to Buddhism?)
sources to help:
In the attached pdf, the pages to use are 3-18, 38-50, and 137-150