Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s11: Chapter Ten

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s11

Language
English

Chapter Ten

c19.s11.1

1. Louis Dumont, "Kingship in Ancient India," *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 6 (1962): 48–77, esp. 52 and 54.

c19.s11.2

2. See chapter 2, section 12, and J. C. Heesterman, "Priesthood and the Brahmin," *Contributions to Indian Sociology*, n.s. 5 (1976): 46–49.

c19.s11.3

3. See Harmut Scharfe, *Die Staatsrechtslehre des Kauṭalya* (Wiesbaden, 1968), 138ff. Scharfe illustrates both meanings, land as well as people, separately. For the undifferentiated unity of land and people, cf. O. Brunner, *Land und Herrschaft* (Darmstadt, 1970), 234f. The undifferentiated people-cum-territory is discussed by Louis Dumont, "Nationalism and Communalism," *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 7 (1964): 30–70, esp. 60ff. For the rise of the clearly defined and compact territory as the basis of national unity, see J. R. Talmon, *The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy*, reprint ed. (London, 1906), 109f.; and J. C. Heesterman, "Two Types of Boundaries," *Felicitation Volume for S. N. Eisenstadt*, ed. E. Cohen (forthcoming).

c19.s11.4

4. One may compare E. R. Leach's observation on the use of the jural idom of local group endogamy for legitimizing membership: "Anyone who was acceptable as a Pul Eliya landowner and was also acceptable in the capacity of brother-in-law to an existent Pul Eliya landowner would, in practice, be treated as of our *variga*" (*Pul Eliya*, [Cambridge, 1961], 303). Compare also the *mutha*, or "clan" territory, as described by F. G. Bailey, actually a group of lineages living in the same territory and expressing this fact as conventional agnation (*Tribe, Caste, and Nation* [Manchester, 1960], 47ff.). See Dumont's remarks in *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 7 (1964): 72.

c19.s11.5

5. See, for instance, the remonstrances against the rulers (apparently strengthened by their alliance with the British) by the clan-brethren, to whom the ruler is only a primus inter pares, in J. Todd, *Annals and Antiquities of Rājhasthan*, pop. ed. (London, 1914), 159ff. (app. to book 2).

c19.s11.6

6. J. C. Heesterman, *The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration* (The Hague, 1957), chap. 6.

c19.s11.7

7. See R. S. Sharma, *Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions* (Delhi, 1968), 145.

c19.s11.8

8. The procedure may be compared with the yearly ceremonies described by A. Béteille (*History of Religions* 5 [1965]: 85), where the central temple is visited by parties carrying the *mūrti*, the image, of the deity of the outlying temples. Next the central mūrti goes on a circuit visiting the associated outlying temples.

c19.s11.9

9. See W. Rau, *Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien* (Wiesbaden, 1957), 107; also Scharfe, *Die Staatsrechtsleure*, 158f.

c19.s11.10

10. Or he is the king himself. This, at least, is the opinion of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, which has the sacrificer himself in the place of the rājanya or rājan. *MS* 4. 3. 8, on the other hand, distinguishes the rājan from the sacrificer.

c19.s11.11

11. This group recalls the first four of the eight so-called *vīras*, or "heroes," who sustain kingship (*PB* 19. 1. 4). This group comprises the king's brother, the king's son, the purohita, and the first consort, followed by *sūta*, *grāmaṇī*, *kṣattṛ*, and *saṃgrahītṛ*.

c19.s11.12

12. I refrain from translating these terms since this would only give them a deceptive air of precision, without clarifying the context. So much is clear, however, they do not indicate specific administrative charges, but rather functions in agonistic potlatch festivals. Thus *sūta*, *grāmaṇī*, *saṃgrahītṛ*, and *rathakāra* are connected with chariot racing and chariot fighting. One commentary consideres the *kṣattṛ* to be a charioteer, although he seems to be connected instead, together with the *govikarta*, with the slaughter and cooking of the cow that is staked in the royal game of dice. The *akṣavāpa* clearly serves the king in the dicing match, while the *takṣan* is described elsewhere as cutting off and receiving the head of the sacrificial victim (*MS* 2. 4. 1)—a custom eliminated in the normalized śrauta ritual. The point to be retained is that all these personages are assocaited with contests (chariot racing, dicing) and their prizes (the cow in the game of dice).

c19.s11.13

14. *ĀpŚS* 20. 5. 9.

c19.s11.14

15. *ŚB* 13. 5. 2.

c19.s11.15

16. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, chap. 14. The four-five schema seems to be fairly current in India as a numerical formula of sociopolitical organization. The epic relates that Yuddhiṣṭhira, the leader of the five Pāṇḍava brothers, asked, by way of compromise, for a kingdom of only five villages, one for each of his four brothers and one, presumably the central one, for himself (see Heesterman, “Two Types of Boundaries”). Another example is offered by S. Sinha’s study of the principality Barabhum, which consisted of a central tract, or *taraf*, and four outlying *tarafs*. The four-five schema forms a striking parallel with the Javanese *mantjapat*. On the two-three and four-five schemas and on their conjunction, see P. E. de Josselin de Jong, *Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan* (Leiden, 1951), 106.

c19.s11.16

17. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, 143–45.

c19.s11.17

18. See G. J. Held, *The Mahābhārata: An Ethnological Study* (Leiden, 1936), 89–97. Held derives the *varṇa* system from a clan system, or more precisely, from “a circulative marriage system with a four-clan arrangement (ibid., 95).

c19.s11.18

19. See *ĀpŚS* 18. 19. 7f.

c19.s11.19

20. Claude Lévi-Strauss, *Les Structures élémentaires de la parenté*, 2d ed. (Paris, 1967), 306.

c19.s11.20

21. E. R. Leach, *Political Systems of Highland Burma*, reprint ed. (London, 1964), chap. 6.

c19.s11.21

22. Josselin de Jong, *Minangkabau*, 71ff.

c19.s11.22

23. Ibid., 105.

c19.s11.23

24. There is, in my opinion, no need for a historical reconstruction of the different phases through which the republic developed out of elected kingship, finally ending in a monarchical system, as proposed by J. P. Sharma, *Republics in Ancient India* (Leiden, 1968), 17f. As Sharma makes clear, the monarchical order existed all the time, side by side with the “republican” one.

c19.s11.24

25. Louis Dumont, *Une sous-caste de l’Inde du süd* (Paris, 1957), 143f.

c19.s11.25

26. *TS* 2. 6. 2. 1.

c19.s11.26

27. *ŚB* 1. 6. 3. 18–22.

c19.s11.27

28. *ŚB* 1. 6. 3. 23.

c19.s11.28

29. *AŚ* 1. 15. 34–40.

c19.s11.29

30. See above, chapter 6, especially section 3.

c19.s11.30

³¹ *AŚ* 6. 2. 13–28; cf. Scharfe, *Die Staatsrechtslehre* 122–27. See also above, chapter 8, section 5.

c19.s11.31

³² *AŚ* 6. 1. 13–15. The state is said to consist of eight elements; however they are unspecified (Mbh 15. 5. 8; 12. 122. 8).

c19.s11.32

³³ *AŚ* 6. 2. 25.

c19.s11.33

34\. See Scharfe, *Die Staatsrechtslehre*, 123–26, where the two schemes have been lucidly disentangled. 35\. L. Renou, “La Notion de *bráhman*,” *Journal Asiatique*, 1949. 36\. J. C. Heesterman, *Consecration*, 141, 150; also above, chapter 5, section 8. 37\. *Manu* 5. 96; 7. 4; 7. 7; 9. 303–11. In connection with the paired ratnins discussed above, it is interesting that in *Manu* 7. 7 the eight gods seem to form four pairs: Agni and Vāyu (Fire and Wind), Sūrya and Soma (Sun and Moon), Yama and Kubera, Varuṇa and Indra. For eight gods representing kingship, cf. also *BĀU* 1. 4. 11. In other texts the number is five (*Nārada Smṛti* 18. 26; *Rām* 3. 40. 12; *Mbh* 12. 68. 41ff.). 38\. *JB* 3. 94 (Auswahl no. 180); cf. *PB* 13. 3. 12. 39\. See above, section 1. 40\. See chapter 7. 41\. See chapter 2, section 6. 42\. *ŚB* 1. 1. 1. 6; 1. 9. 3. 23. 43\. Robert Lingat, *Les Sources du droit dans le système traditionel de l'Inde*, (Paris, 1967), 234, n. 1. 44\. *ĀpŚS* 18. 8. 1. 45\. See chapter 2, section 9, note 59. 46\. See above, note 2. 47\. *AŚ* 1. 6. 1; 1. 7. 1. See above, chapter 9, section 3. 48\. *AŚ* 1. 9. 11. 49\. *AŚ* 1. 7. 9. 50\. See H. Bechert, “Einige Fragen der Religionssoziologie und Struktur des Südasiatischen Buddhismus,” *International Jahrbuch für Religionssoziologie* 4 (1968): 251–95, esp. 200f.; also Bechert, “Aśokas Schismenedikt und der Begriff *saṅghabheda*,” *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd - und Ostasians* 5 (1961): 18–52. 51\. *Mbh* 12. 59. 14–15.

Linked texts (12)