The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c17.10

c17.10

On the face of it, this statement may seem to be a rather lame attempt at harmonization. It does show, however, precisely where the problem lies. Ahiṃsā, abstention from destroying life, is an absolute, transcendent value, and for that reason, it is beyond the grasp of the world and totally at variance with normal practice, with *pravṛtti*. Pravṛtti, then, means going on with the business of life, following the practices of the community and thereby occasionally departing from the ultimate requirements of the dharma. As pointed out by Robert Lingat, there are no temporal sanctions against such ultimately adharmic behavior, nor can there be.¹⁹ But one does not escape the religious or metaphysical sanction of one’s karma. That is, as long as one follows the ways of the world, one is obliged to adhere to the customs of the community and so remains enclosed in it, for the inexorable karma accumulated by the faithful member of his caste will necessarily keep him in line with his community from rebirth to rebirth. And this situation will endure as long as the community—in contradistinction to the individual renouncer—does not conform its practices to the precepts of the dharma, a step that is nowadays known to sociologists by the confusing name “Sanskritization.” However, such conformity can at best be only partial, for pravṛtti, going on with the business of life, as any community is bound to do, is incompatible with its opposite, nivṛtti, turning away from the ways of the world. On the other hand, the individual who would renounce his community’s way of life would thereby break its rules and risk considerable scandal. Whichever way we look, the dilemma remains wide open.