The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.s2.4

c14.s2.4

Whatever the śrauta ritual may achieve for the strictly personal gratification of the king, it can not confer its authority on him. Nor can there be a priesthood to bridge the gap. The king, like any other sacrificer, can of course engage brahmin experts to officiate in his sacrifices, but the king's link with this priesthood does not extend beyond the sphere of the ritual's strictly limited time and place. More important, however, is the individualization of sacrifice, which makes the brahmin's participation in a patron's, and especially in the king's, sacrifice intensely questionable. Even if the close relationship between patron and officiant lasts only for the duration of the ritual—but the rājasūya, for one, spans a couple of years—the brahmin has to accept the food and gifts of his patron during that period. The sharp dividing line between the ritual universe and the social world tends to be blurred, if not obliterated, and the brahmin’s authority to be fatally impaired by involvement in worldly relationships. In this respect, we can readily understand that the sacrificial gifts to the officiants are viewed as a “salary” (*vetana*) for a well-defined, specific service. Once the salary is paid, the relationship is ended and, in theory at least, there are no further personal bonds of obligation and reciprocity.⁴⁵ Nonetheless, the distinction may easily turn out to be too sophisticated, and the texts have harsh things to say about the brahmin who serves the king.⁴⁶ Such service cannot, of course, be ruled out, be it only for the fact that the brahmin cannot live on his spiritual authority alone. But insofar as he is allowed to serve the kṣatriya, he loses his brahmanic value and becomes the kṣatriya’s equal (*kṣatrasama*), even if he serves in the specifically brahmin capacity of an *ṛtvij*, an officiant, in the śrauta ritual. The position of the king’s purohita, in what is an enduring and close relationship, can therefore only be an utterly ambiguous one. He precedes the king but is at the same time held in contempt. No wonder the king’s confidant and jester in the Sanskrit theater, the *vidūṣaka*, is typically a brahmin.