The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c10.11

c10.11

Now the theory of the gift has been clarified by anthropology and especially by Marcel Mauss's classic study.¹² The three interconnected duties of giving, receiving, and reciprocating are well understood. As analyzed by Mauss, the gift establishes the solidarity of givers and receivers and brings about a constant circulation, which maintains a dynamic and manipulable equilibrium. Since sacrifice is also concerned with gifts (offerings), it is tempting to explain sacrifice in the same way as the gift. Hence the unsatisfactory and often criticized *do-ut-des* explanation in its variously trivial, magical, or learned versions. Of course, the *do-ut-des* idea is not totally wrong, for it is a matter of no mean import for man to inveigle the transcendent powers, whose impact he can not avoid in any case, into a manipulable equilibrium of gift and reciprocity. Man will seek, if not to direct unilaterally, at least to arrange his relations to the transcendent in an orderly, predictable manner. But he also knows that this enterprise is ultimately doomed to fail. The constraint to reciprocate loses its power when confronted with the absolute power of the transcendent. Not even the obligation to accept man's gifts holds good for the gods, as we know from the classical story of Polycrates' ring. The desperate attempt of the all-too-fortunate ruler of Samos to restore the equilibrium through the sacrifice of his invaluable ring fails. The gods reject his sacrifice, and the sacrificer finds a miserable end. The transcendent cannot be contained by any compact or arrangement, and man knows it.