Caste and Race in India c7.48

c7.48

The importance of sacrifices and ritualism had been growing and with it the prestige of the priest. The privilege of officiating at sacrificial sessions and other religious rites was exclusively preserved as a divinely appointed and hereditary function of the Brahmins. As the monopolist of ritual procedure, the Brahmin naturally became important. In another way also, he gained in respect because he fulfilled a very fundamental function in the general philosophy of life of these times. As the Mahābhārata has it, "sacrifice sustains both the manes and the gods,"¹ and the Brahmin alone could ensure the proper performance of sacrifices. He was further represented as very beneficial to the political head of the society. Vasisṭha quotes a Vedic text, declaring that the king obtains the sixth part of the merit which Brahmins accumulate by means of their sacrifices and good work.² Gifts had been praised since the Vedic times, and in the literature of this period they were enjoined as a moral duty, the performance of which brought merit to the giver. "He who, placing on the skin of a black antelope, sesamum, gold, honey, and butter, gives it to a Brahmin over-comes all sin."³ Āpastamba declares that a king, who without prejudice to his servants gives land and money to deserving Brahmins, gains endless heavenly worlds. The Brahmin alone could rightfully accept the gifts. As a channel of easy acquisition of merit he thus gained added importance. "The offering made through the mouth of a Brahmin, which is neither split nor causes pain (to sentient creature) nor assails him (who makes it), is far more excellent than an agnihotra."⁴ All these circumstances and the growing unintelligibility of the scriptural language conspired to make the Brahmin almost a god on earth. Even the hard-headed Kauṭilya suggested that in order to avert such providential calamities as fire, flood, and pestilence, the people should worship gods and Brahmins.⁵ The pre-eminence of the Brahmin was so great that the Mahābhārata declared that really speaking there was only one varṇa, viz. the Brahmin and the other varṇas were merely its modifications.⁶ Though Gautama quotes the Vedic texts which declare that the Kshatriyas assisted by the Brahmins prosper, and that the union of the two alone upholds the moral order, yet he lays down that when a king and a Brahmin pass along the same road the road belongs to the Brahmin and not to the king.¹ Vasistha declares that the Brahmins' king is Soma.² The Mahābhārata goes even further, and emphasizes the subordinate position of the Kshatriya, whose only support is pronounced to be the Brahmin. It explains away earthly sovereignty of the Kshatriya by a social analogy. Just as a widow takes to her deceased husband's brother, so has the earth resorted to the Kshatriya in default of the Brahmin. Between a hundred year old Kshatriya and a ten year old Brahmin the latter is said to be like the father.³ And this in a society where age was the greatest consideration for respect.⁴ The superiority of a child-Brahmin over an aged Kshatriya is also supported by Āpastamba.⁵ It is thus clear that the union of the Brahmin and the Kshatriya that was advocated by Gautama must be understood to mean not an alliance between two equals but a tacit domination of the former over the latter.