Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c7: Chapter I. The First Phase—From the Rigveda to the Upaniṣads

A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. The First Phase—From the Rigveda to the Upaniṣads

c7.2

The original social and political institutions of the Indo-Aryans—The doctrine of the king's divinity in the Vedic Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas—Theory of the king's rule by virtue of his divine nature—Transformation of the Indo-Aryan tribal society into the political community—Theory of limitation of the king's and the priest's powers—Doctrine of the origin of divine kingship of Indra—Dogma of joint lordship of the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas—Theories of the mutual relations of Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas as well as of the 'purohita' and the king—The concept of Law (dharma) in the Upaniṣads.

c7.3

The starting-point of the Hindu political ideas is to be discovered in the collection of hymns and prayers forming the earliest literary monument of the Indo-Aryans, the Rigveda Saṁhitā. In this work is embodied a number of doctrines like the divinity of the king and the divine creation of the social classes, which formed later, in the Yajus Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, the basis of the earliest speculations of the Hindus concerning the phenomena of the State.

c7.4

It would thus appear that the early history of Hindu political thought was comprised in the oldest literature of the Sacred Canon and intertwined with its concepts. Nevertheless this must have been the natural offshoot of the social and political institutions of the people at the dawn of their history. It is therefore desirable to present a preliminary survey of the primitive condition of the Indo-Aryans before proceeding to consider their theories of the State. The Rigveda shows the Indo-Aryans to be passing through a stage of transition : the tribal society is being transformed into the aggregate of tribes or the ‘Folk.’ It is with this earlier stage that we are concerned in the present place. The Rigveda specifies and describes a number of tribes that are included within the Aryan pale. Such are the Purus, the Bharatas, the Tritsus, the Yadus, the Gandhāris, the Uśīnaras, the Anus and the Druhyus. Further, the Rigveda has preserved a picture, though traced in dim outlines, of the constitution of the tribal society in its time. The generic term ‘jana’ was applied to a tribe or people. The ‘jana’ was divided into a number of social groups called ‘viś,’ but the division of the ‘viś’ into a number of ‘grāmas’ is doubtful, since the ‘grāma’ might comprise different ‘viśes,’ or coincide with a ‘viś,’ or contain only a part of a ‘viś.’ The ‘viś,’ moreover, might mean either a territorial division, or else a communal group. The government of each tribal unit was normally vested in a monarch (rājan). It has indeed been held that oligarchical forms of government were not unknown among the Indo-Aryans. But this view has been challenged by others on the ground that the passage bearing on this question means merely that the nobles could be called rājan.∗ There can, however, be no reasonable doubt that the normal constitution prevailing among the Indo-Aryans was a monarchy in which the king's power was checked by the tribal assemblies (sabhā and samiti). The tribal society, moreover, was divided at an early period into a number of classes. The earliest and the most fundamental division that arose in its midst was undoubtedly the distinction between the conquering Aryans and the conquered aborigines (Dasyus or Dāsas). The division into the four standard classes of Hindu society, however, occurs in one of the admittedly latest hymns of the Rigveda, while in other parts even the titles of these are seldom mentioned. It was therefore believed at one time that the division into castes was unknown in the Rigveda and was introduced in later times.† This theory has been rejected at the present day in view of the fact that the Rigveda itself points to the presence of all the essential elements of the caste system of later times.‡

c7.5

∗ *Vedic Index*, Vol. II. p. 216. The authors of this work disprove (op. cit. p. 210) Zimmer's theory of the patriarchical organisation of the Indo-Aryans by pointing to their position as invaders in a hostile territory and by quoting the parallel examples of the Aryan invaders of Greece and the German invaders of England.

c7.6

† Muir, *Original Sanskrit Texts*, Vol. I pp. 239-295; Zimmer, *Alt. Leben*, pp. 185-203. For an admirable summary of their arguments, vide *Vedic Index*, Vol. II, pp. 248-249.

c7.7

‡ *Vedic Index*, Vol. II p. 81; Ibid pp. 250-251. Cf. Oldenberg, Z.D.M.G., LI (translated in *I.A*, November—December 1920).

c7.8

Such is a brief outline of the primitive institutions of the Indo-Aryans as reflected in the Rigveda, and these form the historical background of the theories of the State that were first formulated by the Hindu thinkers. It is convenient to begin our description of these theories with the view of the king's relations to his subjects. The Indo-Aryan king indeed is invested from the first with divine attributes. Already in the Rigveda, in a hymn attributed to Trasadasyu, king of the Purus, the royal sage sings, “Twofold is my empire, that of the whole Kṣatriya race, and all the immortals are ours : the Gods associate me with the acts of Varuṇa : I rule over (those) of the proximate form of man. I am the king Varuṇa ; on me (the gods) bestow those principal energies (that are) destructive of the Asuras ; (they) associate me with the worship of Varuṇa. I rule over (the acts) of the proximate form of man. I am Indra, I am Varuṇa, I am those two in greatness : (I am) the vast, profound, beautiful heaven and earth : intelligent, I give like Twastri animation to all beings : I uphold earth and heaven.” The address is continued in the same strain through the three following stanzas, but it is unnecessary to quote them here. In the closing stanzas, Trasadasyu describes himself as resembling the God Indra and as a demi-god (arddha-deva).¹ In this striking hymn, it will be observed, the king compares and nearly identifies himself with the two leading deities of the Vedic pantheon. Such statements could hardly have occurred in the Rigveda, had they been completely out of tune with the sentiments of the time.

c7.9

¹ \* Rv. IV. 42, Wilson's translation, Vol. III pp. 203-205.

c7.10

In the Atharvaveda the conception of the kingly divinity is inculcated in the form of a general doctrine. In one of its hymns, intended in the ritual book to accompany the consecration of the king, occurs the following passage. "Him approaching all waited upon (pari-bhūṣ); clothing himself in fortune, he goes about (car), having own brightness; great is that name of the virile (vṛṣan) Asura; having all forms, he approacheth immortal things."(∗) This stanza is copied from a verse of the Rigveda (†) addressed to the god Indra. It is safe to conjecture that the transference of the divine epithets to the human subject involves a conscious attempt to identify the king with the God. Further, the extract just quoted seems to refer directly to the "divinity that doth hedge a king." For it applies to the king the phrase the name of the 'virile Asura' (asurasya nāma), which in the original hymn corresponds with a term (asuryam) meaning the divinity in which the gods clothe themselves.(‡)

c7.11

(∗) Av. IV. 8, H. O. S. Vol. VII, p. 157.

c7.12

(†) Rv. III, 38. 4.

c7.13

(‡) Vide Whitney's footnote, loc. cit.

c7.14

In the Yajus Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas the king's divinity is pre-eminently associated with his participation in the great political sacrifices. Thus the Śat. Br.,(§) in the course of its exposition of the Vājapeya and the Rājasūya, repeatedly identifies the royal sacrificer with the god Indra.(∥) Further, it describes two of the component rites of these grand eremonies as making the sacrificer identical with the god Prajāpati.∗ Another rite of the Vājapeya, which involves the mounting of the sacrificial post, is made the occasion of the utterance of the following prayer by the sacrificer and his wife: ‘We have become Prajāpati’s children’.† Yet another rite of the Vājapeya, that of consecration of the sacrificer by the priest, is declared to have the result of making the sacrificer the equal of Brihaspati, and it involves a direct intimation to the gods by the priest that the sacrificer has become one of them.‡ In the Rājasūya rite of adoration of the king, the priest is made to utter the words, “Thou art Mitra! Thou art Varuṇa!” Afterwards, there occurs a dialogue between the king and the four priests assembled on his four sides, in the course of which the former addressing the latter is greated in return as Brahman priest, Savitri, Indra, and Varuṇa.§

c7.15

(§) Abbreviations used in this chapter:—Taitt. Sam. = Taittirīya Saṁhitā; Śat. Br. = Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa; Taitt. Br. = Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa; Ait. Br. = Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.

c7.16

(∥) V. 1. 3. 4; 1. 4. 2; 2. 5. 3.

c7.17

∗ V. 2. 1. 24; 3. 4. 23.

c7.18

† V. 2. 1. 11. With this expression may be compared the titles of ‘Sons of Horus’ and ‘Sons of Heaven’ assumed by the rulers of ancient Egypt and China respectively.

c7.19

‡ Śat. Br. V. 2. 2. 14-15: ‘I consecrate thee N. N., with the supreme rulership of Brihaspati’! therewith he mentions the (Sacrificer’s) name: he thus makes him attain to the fellowship of Brihaspati, and to co-existence in his world. He then says, ‘All-ruler is he, N. N.! All-ruler is he, N. N.!’ Him, thus indicated, he thereby indicates to the gods: ‘Of mighty power is he who has been consecrated; he has become one of yours; protect him!’ thus he thereby says.” S. B. E. Vol. XLI. p. 39.

c7.20

§ Taitt, Sam. I. 8. 16. A variant form of this ceremony is described in the Śat. Br. (V. 4. 3. 27).

c7.21

A feature of these identifications with the gods is that the king or the Kṣatriya is normally connected with the god Indra, just as the Brāhmaṇa is connected with the god Brihaspati. Thus the Taitt. Sam., explaining a rite of making offerings to Indra and Brihaspati, states that the Rājanya (Kṣatriya) is connected with Indra while Brihaspati is the holy power (Brahman).[^asterisk] The Śat. Br., in the course of its dogmatic exposition of the Vājapeya, repeatedly identifies the Brāhmaṇa and the Rājanya (Kṣatriya) with the gods Brihaspati and Indra, by equating them in each case to the common factors Brahman (priesthood or priestly dignity) and Kṣatra (ruling power) respectively.dagger Describing the Rājasūya the same work declares in another place that Indra is the sacrificer while men belong to Viṣṇu.[^ddagger]

c7.22

dagger † V. 1. 1. 11; 1. 5. 2-3, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12. [^ddagger]: ‡ V. 2. 5. 3. [^section]: § V. 4. 3. 4; repeated, Ibid 7; S. B. E., Vol. XLI, pp. 98-99.

c7.23

It appears from the above that the king's divinity is derived from a twofold title—as a member of the ruling class, and as a participator in the omnipotent sacrificial ceremonies. As the Śat. Br. remarks in a passage purporting to explain one of the component rites of the Rājasūya, "The sacrificer is Indra;—he is Indra for a twofold reason, namely because he is a Kṣatriya and because he is a sacrificer".[^section] It deserves, however, to be specially remarked that the king was not alone in being ranked as a god. The passages just cited show that like him the Brāhmaṇa was habitually regarded as a god. Indeed the status of divinity was not the exclusive privilege of a single individual, or even of a single class. It was held to belong to all persons entitled to the performance of

c7.24

[^asterisk]: * II. 4. 13.

c7.25

the Śrauta sacrifices. This is apparent from the dogmatic exposition of a ceremony forming an essential preliminary to the sacrificial act. The Dīkṣā or Initiation is declared in the Brāhmaṇas to have the result of raising the sacrificer to the level of the gods. Thus a passage of the Śat. Br. states, “He who is consecrated, truly draws nigh to the gods, and becomes one of the deities,”n∗ while in another passage it is stated, “He who is consecrated indeed becomes both Viṣṇu and a sacrificer; for when he is consecrated he is Viṣṇu; and when he sacrifices, he is the sacrificer.”n† Of a similar import is the direction in the Śat. Br. requiring the priest to address the consecrated person as Brahman, and invoking the divine protection on his behalf, because he is one of the gods. It is expressly laid down in this connexion that the same form of address should be uttered by the priest, even with respect to a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya sacrificer.n‡

c7.26

n∗ III. 1. 1. 8 ; repeated Ibid III. 2. 2. 10 ; 2. 2. 19 ; 2.2. 22.

c7.27

n† III. 2. 1. 17.

c7.28

n‡ Śat. Br. III. 2. 1. 39-40 ; “Thereupon some one calls out, ‘Consecrated is this Brāhman, consecrated is this Brāhman :’ him, being thus announced, he thereby announces to the gods : ‘Of great vigour is this one who has obtained the sacrifice ; he has become one of yours ; protect him !’ this is what he means to say. * * * Wherefore let him address even a Rājanya or a Vaiśya as Brāhman, since he who is born of the sacrifice is born of the Brahman (and hence a Brāhmaṇa)” S. B. E. Vol. XXVI, p. 35.

c7.29

We have endeavoured to trace the history of the doctrine of the King's divinity in the Vedic Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas. It is however only in the latter works that this dogma is held to justify the king's authority over his subjects. The point is foreshadowed in a passage of the Taitt. Saṃ. purporting to explain the nature of one of the so-called especial (ahīna) sacrifices. It is there declared that the priest should make offerings to the gods Agni, Soma, Indra, and Varuṇa, on behalf of a person who is mutually at variance with his fellows. The result of this act is thus stated, "So him becoming Indra, his fellows recognise as superior; he becomes the best of his fellows."∗ This passage evidently seeks to base the king's authority upon his divinity which is attained through the omnipotent sacrifice. The Brāhmaṇas mark a further advance upon the theory of Divine Right. It is indeed in these works that we can trace the beginnings of true political speculation among the Hindus. How is it, ask the authors, anticipating a famous question put centuries later into the mouth of king Yudhiṣṭhira in the Mahābhārata, that the king who is One rules over his subjects who are Many? In one place indeed the answer is given in the stereotyped dogmatic fashion of the Brāhmaṇas. There the Śat. Br., describing one of the rites of the Horse-sacrifice, states, "One additional (oblation) he offers, whence one man is apt to thrive amongst (many) creatures (or subjects)"†. Another passage of the same work answers the question in a wholly different fashion. The Rājasūya comprises a rite in which the Kṣatriya has to shoot to a certain distance with an arrow. Explaining the meaning of this rite the Śat. Br. states, "And as to why a Rājanya shoots, he the Rājanya, is the visible representative of Prajāpati (the lord of creatures) : hence, while being one, he rules over many.”∗ This passage is of great interest in the history of Indian political thought, as it seems to enunciate for the first time a doctrine which became the cornerstone of the theories of kingship in the later canonical works, namely, that of the king’s rule by virtue of his divinity.

c7.30

∗ II. 2. 11. 6, H. O. S. Vol. XVIII, p. 160.

c7.31

† XII. 1. 3. 8, S. B. E. Vol. XLIV, p. 284.

c7.32

∗ Cf. Śat. Br. V. 3. 3. 12 : “ ‘Quicken him, O gods, to be unrivalled !---he thereby says, ‘ Quicken him, O gods, so as to be without an enemy ;’ * * * ‘ him, the son of such and such (a man), the son of such and such (a woman),’ whatever be his parentage, with reference to that he says this * * *” S. B. E. Vol. XLI, pp. 71-72.

c7.33

We may pause here to describe one important limitation involved in the above theory of Divine Right. In the passages quoted above from the Vedic Saṃhitās and the Brāhmaṇas it will be observed that the king is never declared to be a god by virtue of hereditary descent. The king, then, has no indefeasible hereditary right following as a corollary from his divinity. Indeed, the Brāhmaṇa texts, purporting to explain the great ceremonies of royal consecration, distinctly affirm the human origin of the king.† We shall see in a future chapter how the denial of the indefeasible right of the king becomes a cardinal feature of the theories of Divine Right formulated in the later canon.

c7.34

† V. 1. 5. 14, The original passage has pratyakṣatamām which Sāyaṇa explains as pratyakṣatamam rūpam. Eggeling (S. B. E. Vol. XLI, p. 25) translates the first part of the above passage as “And as to why a Rājanya shoots,—he, the Rājanya, is most manifestly of Prajāpati.”

c7.35

Such was the famous theory of the nature of the king’s office which was formally proclaimed in one of the Brāhmaṇas. The rise of this theory seems to have synchronised with the completion of a general change in the Indo-Aryan social organisation. This was nothing less than the transformation of the original tribal society into the political community, or the State. The steps leading to this momentous development may perhaps be discovered by piecing together the fragments of evidence from the Vedic Saṃhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, and by interpreting them on the analogy of kindred changes among other peoples. Already in the Rigveda we mark a tendency towards union of the small tribal units into larger aggregates. A hymn of this work¹ celebrates the well-known horse-sacrifice (aśwamedha) ceremony, which was associated in the later canon with the office of the Emperor. Further, the Rigveda mentions titles indicating the position of the overlord, and implying a higher status than that of the mere king (rājan). Such are the terms samrāj, ekarāja and adhirāja the first of which is likewise used as an honorific designation of the leading deities of the Vedic pantheon like Indra and Varuṇa.² The institution of overlordship along with the imperial ceremony of Aśwamedha, obviously implies a more or less close political union of a number of tribes, and it may have occasionally led to tribal amalgamations. The Brāhmaṇa period witnessed the rise of permanent leagues of tribes bearing new names. Thus the Purus and the Bharatas are mentioned as separate tribes in the Rigveda. But in the Brāhmaṇas they are united into a common people bearing the historic designation of the Kurus.∗ In a similar manner two other tribes called Turvaśa and Krivi in the Rigveda, become merged in the Brāhmaṇas into the united Pañchāla people.† Further, the Brāhmaṇas often join together the Kurus and the Pañchālas in such a manner as to suggest their amalgamation into one single people.‡

c7.36

¹ * Ṛv. I. 162.

c7.37

² † Macdonell, *Vedic Mythology*, p. 24.

c7.38

∗ *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, pp. 167--168

c7.39

† Vide Oldenberg, *Buddha* (English Translation by W. Hoey p. 401 ff.), and Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, p. 317. Oldenberg (loc. cit) quotes the parallel case of the union of the Chamavi, the Sigamberi, and the Ampsivarii, into the composite race of the Franks.

c7.40

‡ *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, pp. 165—166.

c7.41

The results of these tribal amalgamations which no doubt were symptomatic of a general change may be best understood in the light of the recorded history of a people that passed through the same experience as the Indo-Aryans. Describing the evolution of the social and political institutions of the ancient Teutonic tribes, Jenks writes, "The armies which swarm into the Roman Empire, the armies which invade Britain, are leagues of clans..........The most famous of the old Tacitean clans, the Chatti, the Chauci, the Cherusci, have disappeared or been swallowed up in greater organisations. Their places are taken by new groups—Franks, Saxons, Alamanni—which are not ethnical names at all, but (and this is especially significant) names which inevitably suggest military organization ...... The Franks comprise Salians, Sicambrians, Ampsivarians, Chamavians, Ribuarians. The Saxons include fragments of the Chauci and the Cherusci ; the Alamanni are formed out of the Quadi, the Hermonduri, and other clans.

c7.42

A new organism has swallowed up the old. But the new organism is not a mere enlargement of the old ; it is based on entirely different principles. The Clan has a natural leader ; the league of clans has none. . . . . . And so the league of clans produces the war-chief, who may, perhaps, borrow the old Clan title of king, but whose proper designation among Teutonic peoples is ‘heretoch,’ or host-leader. This is the true character of the leaders of the Teutonic invasions. . . . . But a military leader will naturally organise his army on other than Clan principles. . . . . These privileged persons are simply royal officials, chosen for their military or administrative qualities. Many of them are of servile birth ; it is impossible that they should claim ancestral honours. The nobility of blood has been replaced by the nobility of the sword and the office. . . . . The principle of selection for personal merit has wider results than the overthrow of a Clan nobility. It is responsible for what is, perhaps, the most vital difference between the Clan and the State. . . . . The Germans of whom Tacitus writes conducted their warfare by *familiæ et propinquitates*. But the king in the time of the *Leges Barbarorum* dealt directly with the individual.”[^asterisk] “The earliest notion of justice,” the author continues, “as distinct from mere indiscriminate revenge, that we find among the Teutonic peoples, is undoubtedly, the blood-feud. . . . . But when we first turn the search-light of history on the Teuton, he is found to be passing through and beyond the blood-feud. . . . . To the blood-feud

c7.43

[^asterisk]: *Law and Politics in the Middle Ages*, pp. 73-78.

c7.44

then, succeeds the *wer* or money payment as compensation for the injury inflicted. .... But two points in connection with the system of pecuniary compositions require careful attention. To begin with, it seems to have been a purely voluntary system. .... In the second place, it was always admitted that there were some offences for which the money payment could not atone. ........ These are our two starting points for the history of State justice. The king comes to the help of the Clan by compelling the avenger to accept the *wer*, and by compelling the offender to pay it. He likewise takes upon himself the punishment of bootless crimes."¹

c7.45

¹ * Ibid pp. 100-105.

c7.46.1

The Indian evidence fits in, on the whole, with a similar line of development of the Indo-Aryan tribal institutions. The Vedic king, indeed, figures from the first as the captain in war. Of the many allusions to the wars of the tribal king that occur in the Rigveda, it is enough to refer at this place to the celebrated fight of the ten kings against Sudās, king of the Tritsus.† It is significant that the king is described in the Rājasūya as the sacker of towns (purām bhettā).‡ It is, moreover, remarkable that Indra, the divine prototype of the earthly ruler, is pre-eminently distinguished as the fighter against the demon of drought, Vritra.§ While it is difficult to trace any changes in the position of the Vedic king, it is possible to discover a gradual transformation of the order of nobles. The Rājanyas (afterwards called the Kṣatriyas) appear to have at first formed a hereditary ruling and fighting class. But this primitive nobility of blood was thrown into the shade by the rise of a band of officials, many of whom were especially connected with the royal household.

c7.46.2

The nucleus of these officers was apparently the group of king's clients (upastis), who are referred to in the Rigveda, and are described in the Atharvaveda as consisting, among others, of the chariot-maker (ratha-kāra), the smith (takṣan), the charioteer (sūta) and the troop-leader (grāmaṇī).ast In the Yajus Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas these officers, along with others, are associated with the great political ceremonies. Thus the Rājasūya comprises a rite in which the sacrificial sword has to be passed round in succession among a member of persons who include the Sūta and the Grāmaṇī.dag Another and a more important rite of the Rājasūya is the so-called Jewel-offerings (ratnahavīmṣi), in which the king has to make offerings to the gods at the houses of a number of persons called Jewels (ratnins) on the successive days. The list of these Jewels consists, according to the Śat. Br., of the Senānī (commander of the army), the Purohita, the sacrificer himself, the Queen, the Sūta (charioteer, or court minstrel and chronicler), the Grāmaṇī (headman or troop-leader), the Kṣattri (chamberlain), the Samgrahitri (charioteer,) the Bhāgadugha (carver), the Akṣāvāpa (keeper of dice), the Govikarta (huntsman) and the Courier.ddag It is obvious from the above enumeration that the persons who are thus singled out for participation in the ceremony of royal consecration are, with the exception of the Queen, functionaries connected with the administration or with the royal household.

c7.46.3

In connection with the above ceremony, moreover, the Brāhmaṇas point directly to the fact that some of the persons mentioned were inferior in blood to the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas. Thus, according to the account of the Śat. Br. the king is required, immediately at the close of the ‘Jewel-offerings’, to perform two rites for expiating the act of ‘putting those unworthy of sacrifice,—either Śūdras or whomsoever else,—in contact with the sacrifice.’star Thus the Brāhmaṇas would seem to indicate the emergence of a nobility of service in the place of the old nobility of birth. How powerful some of the new nobles were, will appear from the fact that the Śat. Br. declares the Sūṭa and the Grāmaṇī to be kingmakers (rājakrit), although not kings.dagger The history of the administration of justice among the Indo-Aryans, like the history of the nobility, appears to mark the gradual evolution of the State. The Rigveda, indeed, already points to the institution of money-compensation for offences instead of the old indiscriminate revenge or even blood-feud. One of its designations for a human being is ‘śatadāya’, meaning one whose wergeld is a hundred cows. But, at first, justice must have been administered by the family or the clan, instead of the State. In the Dharmasūtras, however, which belong to the immediately following period, the administration of justice is regarded as one of the principal duties of the king.

c7.46.4

This system, therefore, must have been thoroughly established by the close of the present period. The Brāhmaṇas, indeed, contain sufficient hints pointing to the king's exercise of judicial functions. Thus the Śat. Br., in the course of its dogmatic exposition of the Rājasūya sacrifice, mentions a rite as having the effect of guiding the king safely over judicial punishment, whence he becomes exempt from punishment.∗ The introduction of this special ceremony in the king's case would seem to imply that all his subjects were amenable to his jurisdiction. Further, the Śat. Br. describes another rite of the Rājasūya as having the result of making the king lord of the law, and it declares in this connection that the supreme state (paramatā),—which is one of the Vedic designations of sovereignty,—is that in which the people approach the king in matters of law.† This passage, again would appear to hint at the king's sovereign jurisdiction over his subjects.

c7.47

† Rv. VII. 18.

c7.48

‡ Cf. *Vedic Index*, Vol. II, p. 212.

c7.49

§ Cf. Macdonell, *Vedic Mythology*, pp. 58-60.

c7.50

ast \* Rv. X. 97. 23 ; Av. III. 5. 6. 7. Cf. *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, p. 96.

c7.51

dag † V. 4. 4. 15-20.

c7.52

ddag ‡ V. 3. 1. A variant list occurs in the Taitt. Sam. (I 8. 9) and the Taitt. Br. (I. 7. 3).

c7.53

star * Śat. Br. V. 3. 2. 2 ; Ibid 4. Commenting on the above passages, Sāyaṇa instances the commander of the army (Senānī) and others as Śūdras, and the huntsman (govikarta) and others as belonging to whatsoever low caste.

c7.54

dagger † Śat. Br. III. 4. 1. 7 ; XIII 2. 2. 18. Cf. Pañchaviṁṡati Brāhmaṇa XIX. 4, which mentions a list of eight supporters (vīras) of the king,—his brother, son, chaplain (purohita), queen (mahiṣī), the sūta, the grāmaṇī, the kṣattri and the saṁgrahitri.

c7.55

∗ Śat. Br. V. 4. 4. 7: "They (viz. the Adhvaryu and his assistants) then silently strike him with sticks on the back;—by beating him with sticks (daṇḍa) they guide him safely over judicial punishment (daṇḍabadha): whence the king is exempt from punishment (adaṇḍya), because they guide him safely over judicial punishment." S. B. E. Vol. XLI, p. 108.

c7.56

† Śat. Br. V. 3. 3. 9: "For Varuṇa Dharmapati (the lord of the law) he then prepares a Varuṇa pap of barley: thereby Varuṇa, the lord of the law, makes him lord of the law; and that truly is the supreme state, when one is lord of the law; for whoever attains to the supreme state, to him they come in (matters of) law: therefore to Varuṇa Dharmapati." S. B. E. Vol. XLI, p. 71.

c7.57

We have endeavoured above to describe the Vedic theory of the king's rule by virtue of his divine nature. It is now proper to consider an important limitation imposed by the Vedic canonists upon the king's authority over his subjects. The Śat. Br., describing one of the central ceremonies of the Rājasūya, namely, that in which the sacrificer takes his seat upon the throne, states, "The king indeed is the upholder of the sacred law, for he is not capable of all and every speech, nor of all and every deed; but that he should speak only what is right, and do what is right, of that he, as well as the Śrotriya (the Brāhmaṇa versed in sacred writ) is capable; for these two are upholders of the sacred law among men."¹ This passage evidently attempts to limit the king's powers by a reference to the moral nature of his functions. According to it righteous conduct is the natural and necessary attribute of the king and the priest, since both of them are entrusted with the guardianship of the sacred law.

c7.58

¹ * V. 4. 4. 5. S. B. E. Vol. XLI. p. 106.

c7.59

We have next to consider a group of ideas concerning the origin of monarchy, which are characteristically treated in the Brāhmaṇas under a metaphorical guise, but which appear to contain the germs of the pointed and compact theories of later times. We shall begin with the short, but remarkable, picture of the condition of anarchy, which occurs in a passage of the Śat. Br. "Whenever there is drought, then the stronger seizes the weaker, for the waters are the law."² This pithy and vivid description of the evil of anarchy was applied by the later writers to their view of the ‘State of Nature’ which preceded the advent of monarchy, and it was crystallized in the celebrated popular maxim called the Mātsyanyāya. Apart from this account of the state of anarchy, the Brāhmaṇas lay down two views of the origin of the divine sovereignty of Indra. The first occurs in a passage of the Taitt. Br. in connection with one of its elaborate accounts of cosmic creation. Prajāpati, it is there declared, made Indra the most inferior among the gods, as the youngest brother in a family is most inferior to the others. Then he sent away Indra to become the king (adhipati) of the gods. Indra, however, after being greeted by the gods, returned to Prajāpati, and begged from him the lustre (haras) belonging to the Sun, which at that time was possessed by Prajāpati. With some reluctance Prajāpati gave up his lustre to Indra, after making it assume the form of a gold ornament (rūkma). Thus Indra became the sovereign (adhipati) among the gods. According to this passage the sovereignty of Indra is derived entirely from the will of the Highest God, since he was originally inferior to all the gods. Further, the symbol of Indra’s divine creation is the lustre in which he is enveloped. The king of the gods, in other words, rules by Divine Right. This view of the origin of the divine monarchy, it will be observed later, is transferred to the human king in the Mahābhārata as well as the Manusaṁhitā.

c7.60

² † XI. 1. 6. 24. S. B. E. Vol. XLIV. p. 18.
* Taitt. Br. II. 2. 10. 1-2 with Sāyaṇa’s commentary.

c7.61

The theory of the creation of Indra’s sovereignty by the highest of the gods fits in with the view of kingship in the Brāhmaṇas, which, as we have seen, not only represent the monarch as a god in innumerable passages, but also derive his authority in one place from his divinity. A somewhat different theory of the foundation of Indra's kingship is presented in a passage of the Ait. Br. introducing its description of the Great Unction (Mahābhiṣeka) ceremony. “The gods headed by Prajāpati said to one another, ‘This one is among the gods the most vigorous, the most strong, the most valiant, the most perfect, who carries best out any work (to be done). Let us instal him to the kingship.’ They all consented to perform just this ceremony (Mahābhiṣeka) on Indra.”/∗ In this passage it will be observed, Indra's sovereignty is sought to be derived from the election of the gods, Prajāpati himself figuring as the chief of the divine electors. Further, the ground of Indra's election is declared to be his possession of the highest qualities of body and mind.† This version of the origin of monarchy is afterwards reproduced in the Buddhist canon, with the important addition of an original contract fixing the respective duties of the king and his subjects. It may, therefore, be held that the Brāhmaṇa anticipates in some measure the celebrated theory of Social Contract of later times.

c7.62

/∗ Ait. Br. VIII. 4. 12, Haug's translation.

c7.63

† The view of the elective origin of the divine sovereignty occurs in another passage of the Ait. Br. I. 1. 14. There it is declared that the gods and the demons fought with one another. The gods were beaten in all directions. Then they spoke to one another. ‘It is because we have no king (arājatāya) that they are defeating us, let us elect a king.’ Thereafter they created Soma king, and through his help obtained victory in all directions.

c7.64

We have thus far endeavoured to describe the theories of the nature and the origin of the king's office, that are laid down in the Brāhmaṇas. It will now be our task to consider the views of the canonists concerning the status of the ruling class in general along with the priestly order in relation to the rest. The social system of the Indo-Aryans, as we have seen, involves from the first a division into four classes which were afterwards known as Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas Vaiśyas and Śūdras. Now the Vedic Saṃhitās and the Brāhmaṇas lay down doctrines of the origin of these classes, which involve their arrangement in an order of precedence. The earliest theory of class origins is contained in the celebrated and oft-quoted hymn in honour of the primeval giant (Puruṣa), which occurs in the last book of the Rigveda, and is reproduced in the Atharva as well as the Yajus Saṃhitās. Puruṣa, it states, has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand legs. He was born in the beginning, and with him the gods performed a sacrifice. His mouth became the Brāhmaṇa, his arms the Rājanya (Kṣatriya), his thighs the Vaiśya, and from his feet sprang the Śūdra. From his mind sprang the Moon, from his eye the Sun, from his mouth Indra and Agni, from his breath the god of wind. From his navel arose the air, from his head the sky, from his feet the earth, from his ear the four quarters.∗ In this account of the origin of creation is obviously involved the dogma of precedence of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya by virtue of the creative act of the Deity. The point is explicitly brought out in an alternative theory of social origins which occurs in a passage of the Taitt. Sam. According to this view, the Brāhmaṇa was created from Prajāpati's mouth, and hence he is the chief. The Kṣatriya was produced from his breast and arms, and hence he is strong. From Prajāpati's middle the Vaiśya was created, and hence he is fit to be eaten, while the Śūdra was produced from the Creator's feet, and hence he is dependant on others and unfit for sacrifice."¹ Further, it has to be observed that the doctrine of precedence of Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya is sought to be justified in other passages on grounds independent of the dogma of their divine creation. Thus the Śat. Br. declares in one place that the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya precede but never follow the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, for otherwise there would ensue confusion between the good and the bad.² According to this passage, then, the gradation of classes is the reflection of their relative moral worth. Therefore the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya have a moral title of precedence over the other classes.

c7.65

∗ Rv. X. 90 = Av. XIX. 6 = Vaj. Sam. XXXI. 1-6.

c7.66

¹ * Taitt. Sam. VII. 1. 1.

c7.67

² † XIII. 4. 4. 13. Cf. Ibid V. 4. 4. 19. explaining the Rāja-sūya rite of handing over the sacrificial sword to the Brāhmaṇa, the king and other persons, in succession: "And as to why they mutually hand it on in this way, they do so lest there should be a confusion of classes, and in order that (society) may be in the proper order." S. B. E. Vol. XLI, p. 111.

c7.68

We have now to consider how the above doctrine was developed in other passages of the Brāhmaṇas into the dogma of joint lordship of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya over the rest. In the passage of the Taitt. Sam. referred to above, the four classes are declared to correspond to as many separate categories of created beings.∗ The Brāhmaṇas, moreover, present alternative theories of the origin of society, which tend to exclude the lowest class from fellowship of the others, who alone are said to be created by the Supreme Deity. Thus according to a passage of the Taitt. Br. the Brāhmaṇas sprang from the gods and the Śūdras from Asuras (demons), while another passage declares the Śūdra to have sprung from non-existence.† A passage of the Śat. Br. mentions Prajāpati's creation of three triads, each of which is expressly stated to be co-extensive with the Universe. These comprise the series earth ether and sky, the Brāhmaṇa the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, as well as the self the human race and the animals.‡ Another passage of the Śat. Br. goes further, and seeks to exclude even the Vaiśya from the fellowship of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya. Incomplete, it says, is he who is not either a noble or a domestic chaplain, while he who is either a noble or a domestic chaplain is everything.*

c7.69

∗ Taitt. Sam. VII. 1. 1 ; Prajāpati desired, "May I have offspring. He meted out the Trivrit from his mouth. After it the God Agni was created, the Gāyatrī metre, the Rathantara Sāman, of men the Brāhmaṇ, of cattle the goat; therefore are they the chief, for they were produced from the mouth. From the breast and arms he meted out the Panchadaśa Stoma. After it the God Indra was created, the Triṣṭubh metre, the Brihat Śaman, of men the Rājanya, of cattle the sheep. Therefore they are strong, for they were created from strength. From the middle he meted out the Saptadaśa Stoma. After it the All-gods as deities were created, the Jagatī metre, the Vairūpa Sāman, of men the Vaiśya, of cattle cows. Therefore are they to be eaten, for they were created from the receptacle of food. Therefore are they more numerous than others, for they were created after the most numerous of the Gods. From the feet he meted out the Ekaviṅśa Stoma. After it the Anuṣṭubh metre was created, the Vairāja Sāman, of men the Śūdra, of cattle the horse. Therefore these two, the horse and the Śūdra, are dependent on others. Therefore the Śūdra is not fit for the sacrifice, for he was not created after any gods." H. O. S. Vol. 19. pp. 557-558.

c7.70

† I. 2. 6. 7 ; III. 2. 3. 9.

c7.71

‡ Śat. Br. II. 1. 4. 11 ; "Verily with 'bhūh'! (earth), Prajāpati generated the earth, with 'bhuvah'! (ether) the ether, with 'svah'! (heavens) the sky. As far as these worlds extend, so far extends this universe: with the universe it (the fire) is accordingly established. With ‘bhūh’ ! Prajāpati generated the Brahman (priesthood); with ‘bhuvah’ ! the Kṡatra (nobility); with ‘svah’ ! the Viṡ (the common people). As much as are the Brahman, the Kṣatra and the Viṡ, so much is this universe: with the universe it (the fire) is accordingly established. With ‘bhūh’ Prajāpati generated the Self ; with ‘bhuvah’ the (human) race ; with ‘svah’ ! the animals. As much as are the Self the (human) race, and the animals, so much is this universe : with the universe it (the fire) is accordingly established.” S. B. E. Vol. XII, p. 296.

c7.72

It is in these dogmas of the inherent impurity and imperfection of the two other classes and especially of the Śūdra, that we have to seek the true origin of the doctrine of the joint lordship of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya over both. This is laid down in a passage of the Śat. Br. which states that Brahma (priesthood) and Kṣatra (nobility) are established upon the people.†

c7.73

In laying down the doctrine just stated that the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya exercise a joint authority over the people, the Brahmanical canonists are necessarily led to consider the mutual relations of these powers. Whatever might have been the case in the earlier period, the functions of the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas are sharply demarcated in the Brāhmaṇas. According to a passage of the Śat. Br., the nobility takes no delight in the priestly office and spiritual lustre (Brahma) takes no delight in noble rank.∗ As regards the relative superiority of these classes, the dogma of the origin of society involves, as we have seen, the Brāhmaṇa's precedence over all the other classes by virtue of the will of the Creator. We have further seen that the ground of this superiority tended to be shifted from dogma to reason in the Brāhmaṇas. We may quote here some extracts bearing specifically upon the mutual relations of the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas. The Ait. Br. in the course of its exposition of the Rājasūya observes, "The Brahma certainly precedes the Kṣatra. For the king should think, when the Brahma is at the head, then my royal power would become strong and not to be shaken."[^\dagger] Similarly the Sat. Br., in the course of its explanation of the Rājasūya rite of handing on the sacrificial sword, observes that the king who is weaker than a Brāhmaṇa is stronger than his enemies.\ddag It follows from these passages that the Brāhmaṇa's precedence is necessary in the king's own interest, namely, the security of his power against his enemies.

c7.74

¹ * VI. 6. 3. 12-13.

c7.75

² † XI. 2. 7. 16.

c7.76

∗ XIII. 1. 5. 2-3; Ibid 5. In the ritual of the Rājasūya described in the Ait. Br. (VII. 19) the Kṣatriya is admitted into the sacrifice only on condition of exchanging his own weapons for those of the Brāhmaṇa. [^\dagger]: VI. 1. 1. Haug's translation, p. 497. Cf. Ibid 1. 4.

c7.77

\ddag V. 4. 4. 15. S. B. E. Vol. XLI p. 110.

c7.78

Proceeding further in the analysis of the relations of the ruling and the priestly classes with reference to each other, the Brāhmaṇas would appear, in the first place, to lay down the doctrine of co-ordination of these powers. Thus the Sat. Br. in the course of its exposition of the Rājasūya makes the priest exclaim to the assembled multitude in two successive stages of the ceremony, "This man, O ye (people), is your king, Soma is the king of us Brāhmaṇas."(\∗) This passage is applied in the immediately following lines to justify the Brāhmaṇa's immunity from taxation, but it obviously carries within itself the notion that the priestly class is independent of the king. The Yajus Saṃhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, moreover, would appear to set forth two different views concerning the mutual relationship of these powers. The first is represented by a passage of the Taitt. Sam. which roundly declares the kingly power and the priestly power to be helpful to each other.† Some passages of the Brāhmaṇas, however, introduce us to the view of one primary power,—namely the sacerdotal—of which the other is a derivative. Thus the Śat. Br. declares in one place that the priesthood (Brahma) is the conceiver and the nobility (Kṣatra) is the doer, for the god Mitra is intelligence and the god Varuṇa is will. In the beginning the two were separate. Then Mitra, the priesthood, could stand without Varuṇa, the nobility, but Varuṇa could not stand without Mitra. "Whatever deed Varuṇa did unsped by Mitra, the priesthood, therein forsooth he succeeded not." Then Varuṇa invited the assistance of Mitra, promising to place him foremost. "Whatever deed sped by Mitra, Varuṇa thenceforward did, in that he succeeded. Hence it is quite proper that a Brāhmaṇ should be without a king, but were he to obtain a king, it would be conducive to the success (of both.) It is, however, quite improper that a king should be without a Brāhmaṇ, for whatever deed he does, unsped by Mitra, the priesthood, therein he succeeds not.”\* This passage, it will be observed, represents the mutual relations of Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya in the terms of the attributes of intelligence and will. It therefore follows that the Brāhmaṇa is the mainspring of the activities of the Kṣatriya. This point is further developed in the above passage by means of a legend of the divine prototypes of the two classes, which finally leads to the conclusion that the kingly power involves as its necessary adjunct the priestly power, not *vice versa*. From this conception of the priestly power as being the motive force as well as the indispensable adjunct of the kingly power, it is but one step to draw out the notion that the latter is derived from the former. This step is taken in a passage of the Śat. Br. which categorically states that the nobility is produced out of the priesthood.†

c7.79

(\∗) V. 3. 3. 12; Ibid 4. 2. 3. S. B. E. Vol. XLI, pp. 72, 95.

c7.80

† Taitt. Sam. V. 1. 10. 3: "Verily by means of the holy power he quickens the kingly power, and by the kingly power the holy power; therefore a Brahman who has a princely person is superior to another Brahman; therefore a prince who has a Brahman is superior to another prince." H. O. R. Vol. XIX p. 401.

c7.81

n \* IV. 1. 4. 1-6. S. B. E. Vol. XXVI. pp. 269-271.

c7.82

n † XII. 7. 3. 12. The doctrine stated above, namely that the Brāhmaṇa is the source of the Kṣatriya, finds expression in a remarkable theory of the origin of the four classes which occurs in the supplementary portion of the Śat. Br. (XIV. 4. 2. 1 = Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad I. 4. 11-15). “Verily in the beginning there was Brahman, one only. That being one, was not strong enough. It created still further the most excellent Kṣattra (power), namely those Kṣattras among the Devas,—Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu, Īśāna. ......He was not strong enough. He created the Viś (people), the classes of Devas which in their different orders are called Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, Viśve Devas, Maruts. He was not strong enough. He created the Śūdra colour (caste), as Pūshan (as nourisher)...... Among the Devas that Brahman existed as Agni (fire) only, among men as Brāhmaṇa, as Kṣatriya through the (divine) Kṣatriya, as Vaiśya through the (divine) Vaiśya, as Śūdra through the (divine) Śūdra. Therefore people wish for their future state among the Devas through Agni (the sacrificial fire) only; and among men through the Brāhmaṇa, for in these two forms did Brahman exist." S. B. E. Vol. XV, pp. 88-90. In this account of cosmic creation it will be observed that the First Cause is represented as successively creating the divine prototypes of the Kṣatriyas, the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras, while nothing is mentioned about the creation of the Brāhmaṇas. Indeed it is declared that while the original creative principle is manifested directly in the form of the Brāhmaṇa it manifests itself as Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra through a derivative order of gods. [^asterisk]: * VII. 26.

c7.83

These views of the mutual relations of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya are partially reflected in the theory of the relative position of two representative members of these classes. The purohita (domestic chaplain) indeed stood in a special relation to the king, and hence the inter-relations of these functionaries form the subject of some important speculations of the Vedic canonists. The Ait. Br. states in one place that the purohita is one-half of the Kṣatriya.[^asterisk] The most considerable body of its reflections on this point, however, occurs in the last chapter recommending the employment of the domestic priest by the king.dagger It is there declared that the purohita with his wife and son is the king's threefold sacrificial fire. His title indeed is said to be protector of the kingdom (rāṣṭragopa). It is further stated that the purohita is the god of fire possessing five destructive powers. In the expressive language of the text he surrounds the king with these powers as the sea surrounds the earth. If the purohita is propitiated, he conveys the king to heaven and makes him obtain the royal dignity, bravery, a kingdom and subjects, but if he is not propitiated, he deprives the king of these blessings. The purohita, then, according to this view, is the partner and the coadjutor, the ‘alter ego,’ of the king. Nay more, he is the active Providence ruling the kingdom as well as the king.

c7.84

dagger † VIII, 24-27.

c7.85

We may pause here to mention one important feature of the theories concerning the position of the priestly class in the State. In the passages quoted above from the Vedic Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas it may be observed that the authority of the priest is never derived from his divine nature. In this respect the theories with which we are concerned present a marked contrast to the doctrine of the nature of the king’s office. The Vedic works indeed invest the Brāhmaṇas from the first with divine sanctity. In the Rigveda, where it is true the term signifies not merely a hereditary caste but also a seer as well as a specific order of priests, there are passages associating the Brāhmaṇas with the gods. Thus in one place the priest addresses the Brāhmaṇas along with the auspicious and sinless heaven and earth as well as the god Pūṣan (Sun) for protection from evil.∗ Another passage conveys the poet’s prayer to the god Soma who has entered into the Brāhmaṇas.∗ In the later literature where the notion of a hereditary priestly caste has crystallised into shape, the conception of the Brāhmaṇa’s sanctity is carried to a greater length. The Atharvaveda has a set of five hymns the burden of which is to teach the inviolability of the Brāhmaṇa’s person and property. In the course of this description we are introduced to the doctrine that the Brāhmaṇa enjoys the special protection of deities like Agni, Soma, Indra, and Varuṇa.† The Yajurveda and the Brāhmaṇas are distinguished by their open, not to say aggressive, assertion of the divinity of the Brāhmaṇas. A passage of the Taitt. Saṃ. distinguishes between two classes of gods, namely, the gods who receive offerings secretly and the Brāhmaṇas who receive them openly.‡ The Śat. Br. declares in two places that a Brāhmaṇa descended from a sage (ṛiṣi) represents all the deities,\* while other passages inculcating the merit of making gifts to Brāhmaṇas explicitly style them human gods.†

First 87 of 98 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)