The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c16.25

c16.25

But however deftly the assimilation is achieved, the element of “surreptitiousness” becomes immediately evident when we are informed that “the exchanges of wealth and food on the occasion of tantric worship (*pūjā*) are often equated with vedic worship (*yajña*),” that “the mere offering of food to the gods is seen to be equivalent to vedic worship by the brahmin,” and “that the leavings of the gods accepted by the brahmin and the leavings of the brahmin accepted by the (pure) śūdra come increasingly to be equated with the powerful coded substances of the Veda itself”.³⁰ Not only is the connection with the Veda a pious fiction, but Vedic sacrifice in the classical form we know from the relevant texts is individualized to the extent of intentionally excluding social communication and interdependence. It does not arise from social relationships nor does it establish them beyond the restricted place and duration of its performance. It is resolutely extrasocial and typically is performed, if at all, outside the community.³¹ This exclusiveness gives the Veda and its sacrificial injunctions their transcendent, absolute value, but by the same token, they are cut off from society. But the Veda, precisely because of its transcendent nature, is the repository of ultimate authority and legitimation. The wish, or rather the need, to assimilate social interdependence and exchange to "Vedic worship" stands to reason, but, as we saw, this can only be done "surreptitiously." This has nothing to do with dishonesty or hypocrisy. It is a desperate means of trying to deal with an insoluble problem—the problem of relating the ultramundane order of Veda and purity with the worldly realities of power and dominance.