Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government c2.s1.9

c2.s1.9

⁵ The reference is to the performance of the Sacrifice, which is the primary “work” of the King above (Indra as Viśvakarmā, RV. VIII. 98. 2) as it is of earthly Kings. Inasmuch as the King is the Executive (*kartṛ*), his is essentially the *karmamārga*, the “active life,” as distinguished from the *jñānamārga*, the “contemplative life” of the Brāhman. Further, it will be seen that in giving Agni his “due” or “share” (*bhāga*)—from Agni's point of view *namasyantaś ca māṁ bhaktyā*, as in BG. IX. 14—Indra becomes a *bhaktṛ*, just as in RV. X. 51. 8-9 where Agni demands his “share of the oblation” (*haviṣo datta bhāgám*), the Gods who grant it are *bhaktṛs*. The like is implied for the human Sacrificer who gives his “portion” (*bhāga*) to Agni (RV. II. 10. 6) and “in appointing to each their share, endears the Gods” (*yathā bhāgaṁ tad devatāḥ prīṇāti*, AB. III. 4 and 38); cf. RV. IV. 2. 8-10, where the generous Sacrificer “in offering the oblation, endeareth Thee” (*priyáṁ vā tvā kṛṇávate havíṣmān*) and *ib.* 14 where “dear to Thee be his invocation.” So also in TS. V. 4. 5. 4 where Agni “endeared by the gift of his own portion (*svéna bhāgadhéyena prītáḥ*), burns away the Sacrificer's evil” (*pāpmānaṁ ápi dahati*); cf. TS. II. 1. 4. 6 where Indra approaches Agni “with his own share” and Agni then burns away the sixteen coils of Vṛtra in which Indra is wrapped, and in like manner in the case of “whoever approaches him with his own share (*svéna bhāgadhéyenópasṛtaḥ*), Agni burns up his evil,” and “approaches” might have been rendered by “takes refuge with”; the preceding texts from TS. are echoed in BU. VI. 3. 1 *bhāgadhéyaṁ juhomi*, etc., and the Gods having been thus “delighted” (*tṛptāḥ*), “may they delight me” (*mā . . . tarpayantu*), and a reciprocity is implied as much as it is in the older *bhakti* texts; it is never for nothing that a man devotes himself. The “sacrificial offering” (*yajñíyam bhāgám*) to which Agni moves in RV. X. 124. 3, in the same way implies a *bhaktṛ*, here again doubtless Indra. That “Thou art ours and we are thine” (RV. VIII. 92. 32) implies no less a mutual loyalty, like that of thane and earl or wife and husband (cf. the oaths in AB. VIII. 15), that belongs to the very essence of “Bhakti.” The *bhakti* “tone” of RV. V. 46. 1 (*háyo ná vidvā́n ayuji svayáṁ . . . ná . . . vaśmi*, etc., corresponding to I. 190. 4 *átyo ná yaṁsad yakṣabhṛ́d vícetāḥ*) and that of VII. 86. 7 (*áraṁ dāso ná mīḷhúṣe karāṇy ahám*) is unmistakable. The Sacrificer is identified with the oblation (*havír vaí dīkṣitáḥ*, TS. VI. 1. 4. 5); it is himself that he devotes (ŚB. *passim*); the Sacrifice is a symbolic suicide (*ātmānam ālabhate*, AB. II. 3; cf. Eggeling’s note on ŚB. I. 2. 3. 5, and the designation of the Sacrificer as *ātmayājī* in Maitri Up. VI. 10). AB. III. 8 combines the notions of the contemplation (*dhyāna*) of a deity, the offering of an oblation and that of sacrifice with an “endearment” (*yasyai devatāyai havir gṛhītaṁ syāt tāṁ dhyāyed . . . sākṣād eva tad devatāṁ prīṇāti, pratyakṣād devatāṁ yajati*). There is no real difference between the implications of these Vedic and Brāhmaṇa texts and that of, for example, BG. XII. 19 “He that hath ‘devotion is dear to me” (*bhaktimān me priyo naraḥ*). It would be naïve to maintain that the Vedic Sacrificer, who certainly performed “devotions” was not also “devoted,” or that he never loved the “Friend” (Mitra).