Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s3: Chapter Two

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s3

Language
English

Chapter Two

c19.s3.1

1. See Louis Dumont and David Pocock, *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 2 (1958): 58; also Dumont, "Caste, Racism, and Stratification," ibid. 5 (1961): 34–35.

c19.s3.2

2. See J. C. Heesterman, "Tradition in Modern India," *Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde* 119 (1963): 149f. On "Sanskritization," cf. J. F. Staal, "Sanskrit and Sanskritization," *Journal of Asian Studies* 22 (1963): 261ff.; also Dumont and Pocock, "On the Different Aspects or Levels in Hinduism," *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 3 (1959): 40–45.

c19.s3.3

3. On brahminical rejection of priesthood, see also chapter 10.

c19.s3.4

4. For the following discussion of the Vedic ritual, I draw in part on a previous paper, "Vrātya and Sacrifice," *Indo-Iranian Journal* 6 (1962): 1–37, especially sections 4 and 6–9, where more detailed references may be found.

c19.s3.5

5. The exception is the *sattra*, or ritual session, in which a group of brahmins are at the same time patron and officiant, see below, section 9.

c19.s3.6

6. "The evil (*pāpman*) of the dīkṣita is divided in three ways. he who eats his food (takes) a third part; he who mentions his evil (*aślīla*) a third part; he who mentions his name a third part" (*KS* 23. 6). We are reminded here of the inauspicious "voice" (*aślīlā vāc*) that pursues Indra after his killing of Viśvarūpa. Indra—with whom the sacrificer is often identified—also disposes of his guilt, the impurity of death, in three ways (*TS* 2. 5. 1. 2–5). Eating the food of the dīkṣita is also forbidden by Manu, who brackets the dīkṣita with different kinds of impure people (*Manu* 4. 210).

c19.s3.7

7. *KS* 34. 7, 11; *TS* 7. 2. 10. 3.

c19.s3.8

8. *KS* 34. 8, 11; *TS* 7. 2. 10. 2; cf. also *ĀpŚS* 13. 6. 4–6.

c19.s3.9

9. For instance, if the cow whose milk is destined for the agnihotra offering sits down at the time of milking, this means that she has become aware of the yajamāna's evil. Therefore he should give this cow to a brahmin whose food he will not eat afterward. In this way, he fastens the evil onto the brahmin(*TB* 1. 4. 3. 2). The heinous sin of killing a brahmin is transferred to him who eats the food of a brahmin-killer (*ĀpDhS* 1. 19. 16). For the giving of cows to free oneself from evil, cf. also *Mbh* 13. 71. 50–51, 53. In general, liberality is considered a means of freeing oneself from evil, cf. *Manu* 4. 228; 2. 228; also *Mbh* 13. 93. 12c: *dānaṃ dadat pavitrī syāt*.

c19.s3.10

¹⁰ See also *Mbh* 13. 35. 23, where it is said that the acceptance of gifts extinguishes the brahmin's luster (*tejas*) (cf. Manu 4. 186) and where at the same time Bhīṣma warns against the brahmin who refuses to accept them.

c19.s3.11

¹¹ *AB* 5. 24. 3; *KB* 6. 11.

c19.s3.12

¹² For the patron's birth as a brahmin, "out of the sacrifice," "out of the *bráhman*," cf. *ŚB* 3. 2. 1. 40; 13. 4. 1. 3; *AB* 7. 22. 4.

c19.s3.13

13. See *JB* 2. 369–70. Prajāpati is enveloped in pāpman at birth. Brahman delivers him from this evil in three moves (see the tripartite pāpman of the dīkṣita, n. 6); the pāpman then becomes Prajāpati’s śrī.

c19.s3.14

14. See *ĀpŚS* 22. 1. 11–16, which deals with the twelve-day ritual, celebrated either as an ahīna or as a sattra. Though the ahīna, according to classical theory, is performed by one yajamāna assisted by sixteen officiants, it is striking that the *Āpastamba Dharmasūtra* and *Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā* consider the execution by a group of dīkṣitas assisted by non-dīkṣita officiants as the proper characteristic of the ahīna (cf. also *MānŚS* 7. 2. 1. 3). For the invited brahmin’s question whether or not it is an ahīna, see *ĀpŚS* 10. 1. 3 with Caland’s note and W. Caland and V. Henry, *L’Agniṣṭoma* (Paris, 1906–7), 4. See also Heesterman, “Vrātya and Sacrifice”, 31–34.

c19.s3.15

15. See F. B. J. Kuiper, “The Ancient Indian Verbal Contest,” *Indo-Iranian Journal* 4 (1960): 217–81.

c19.s3.16

16. It may not be a fortuitous invention that the *Mahābhārata* gives an elaborate identification of battle and sacrifice (*Mbh* 12. 98). Cf. Marcel Mauss’s observation: “Le *Mahābhārata* est l’histoire d’un gigantesque potlatch” (“Essai sur le don,” *Sociologie et Anthropologie* (Paris 1950), 243). Mauss’s study is the starting point of G. J. Held, *The Mahābhārata: An ethnological study* (Leiden, 1936).

c19.s3.17

17. A. Hillebrandt, *Vedische Mythologie*, 2d ed. (Breslau, 1927–29), 260.

c19.s3.18

18. Cf. *ĀpŚS* 14. 19, 20.

c19.s3.19

19. *KS* 31. 15. *Saṃṛtayajñó vá eṣá yád darśapūrṇamāsaú, kásya yakṣyámānasya váha devátā yajñám āgácchanti kásya vā ná* (*MS* 1. 4. 5; *TS* 1. 6. 7. 1). The point at issue is to whose sacrifice the gods will come (as guests).

c19.s3.20

20. For the gods and asuras competing in the ritual, see, e.g., *KS* 23. 7. See for the food exchanges, *JB* 1. 223 (Auswahl no. 83): “The asuras had swallowed poison from the gods; they had swallowed it unknowingly thinking it to be food.” After what we have seen of the ideas underlying the gift, we can readily understand their feeling poisoned (cf. also *PB* 19. 4. 2). For the reversed relationship, see *JB* 3. 118: “In the beginning these worlds were in the possession of the asuras; the devas, intent on śraddhā and tapas, were dependent on them for their livelihood.” Here we may compare *RV* 10. 151. 3, according to which the gods obtained śraddhā with the asuras. The reversible relationship between devas and asuras seems still to survive to some extent when it is related that the asuras had originally won command over the universe from the gods, that the gods overcame the asuras, but that later on, the asuras will again conquer the gods. Similarly, when Indra has won Śrī from Bali, Bali says that at a future occasion there will again be a *devāsuram yuddham*, in which he will win (*Mbh* 12. 225. 31).

c19.s3.21

21. *KS* 25. 7; *MS* 3. 8. 6.

c19.s3.22

22. *ĀpŚS* 22. 3. 13f.

c19.s3.23

23. *BaudhŚS* 18. 20.

c19.s3.24

24. *JB* 3. 18 (Auswahl no. 136).

c19.s3.25

25. It is noteworthy that in the Āditya-Aṅgiras story the parties exchange competing invitations and participate together in the ceremony. In the case of Keśin and Khaṇḍika, each performs his own separate ceremony, only announcing it to the opponent. These ceremonies are supposed to bring about their result automatically, by means of the classical arsenal of normalized liturgical operations in which there is no place for a real contest.

c19.s3.26

²⁶ J. C. Heesterman, *The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration* (The Hague, 1957), 141f., 150f. *ŚāṅkhŚS* 16. 18. 1–7 fittingly assigns the brahmin’s role in this verbal exchange to the sole brahman officiant.

c19.s3.27

²⁷ *ŚāṅnkhŚS* 16. 8. 8.

c19.s3.28

28. This idea also survives in the classical Soma ritual in the restricted and mitigated form of a begging tour (*saniyācana*), see below, chapter 6, section 7.

c19.s3.29

30. Brahmins acting as kṣatriyas are mentioned, e.g., *Mbh* 12. 22. 6. It is said of Indra that he is a son of Brahman but has become a kṣatriya through his works (*karmaṇā*) (*Mbh* 12. 22. 11). For Indra as a brahmin, cf. also the subrahmaṇyā recitation, where Indra is addressed, among other epithets, as *kauśika brāhmaṇa* (see *ṢvB* 1. 1. 21; and Caland and Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma*, no. 49). See also H. P. Schmidt, *Bṛhaspati und Indra* (Wiesbaden, 1958), 237–39.

c19.s3.30

31. *Mbh* 3. 117. 12; 12. 49. 64. Cf. *AB* 8. 21. 8, where it is a mythical king, Viśvakarman Bhauvana, who having conquered the earth offers her to Kaśyapa at the occasion of a horse sacrifice at which Kaśyapa is the chief officiant. See also *ŚB* 13. 7. 1. 15.

c19.s3.31

32. Heesterman, *Consecration*, 203ff. Cf. also E. W. Hopkins, “The Position of the Ruling Caste,” *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 13 (1889): 99ff. In connection with the king’s court, Hopkins notes that the brahmins “seem a gradual intrusion on the knightly assembly.”

c19.s3.32

33. Of course there will have been some priestly specialists, who seem to have been amalgamated in the group of sixteen or seventeen officiants assisting the yajamāna in the classical ritual. But it would seem to me that specialized priesthood was not necessarily characteristic of the bearers of the brahman.

c19.s3.33

34. “Das vedische Opfer ist durch alle wesentlichen Einzelheiten seiner Form und seines Verlaufs definiert als ein stilisiertes Gastmahl” (P. Thieme, “Vorzarathustriches bei den Zarathustriern,” *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlämdischen Geschicte* 107 (1957): 90. This refers to a banquet offered to the gods, but it is also offered to the brahmins, who are the “human gods.” Elsewhere, Thieme suggests that the dakṣiṇā is a “Gastgeschenk” (*Der Fremdling im Rigveda* [Leipzig, 1938], 27; previously, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 3 (1959): 255, n. 36). I have doubted this interpretation, but I now recognize that the rendering “Gastgeschenk” seems to touch the essence of the matter.

c19.s3.34

35. *PB* 19. 4. 2, cf. also above n. 20.

c19.s3.35

36. *Mbh* 12. 8. 34ff.

c19.s3.36

37. Mauss, “Essai sur le don,” 149–53.

c19.s3.37

³⁸ See *JB* 2. 183 (Auswahl no. 144) for the meaning of *jana*, “other people.” Cf. also *ṢvB* 1. 7. 3: “Food leaves him, who though fit to eat food yet does not eat food . . . . Especially by the food of the other people (*janyam annam*) he becomes a food-eater.” Caland renders *jana* “die Ferne” or “die Fremde.” It would seem that what was originally meant was the opposite party in the ritual. In the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa* passage quoted above, *jana* is explained as vaiśya or bhrātṛvya. *AB* 8. 26. 3 calls the rivals *janyāni* (*sapatnā vai dviṣanto bhrātṛvyā janyāni*). Interesting also is the *janya*, or *janyo mitram*, who participates in the unction ceremony (Heesterman, *Consecration*, 114). In the *Ṛgveda Saṃhitā*, *jānya* and *jáne mitrá* occur in the sense of matchmaker (cf. L. Renou, *Études sur le vocabulaire du Ṛveda* [Pondichéry, 1958], 35) and thus possibly denote affinal relationship. Such a relationship may well be in keeping with the ambivalence of the rivalry and cooperation between the parties.

c19.s3.38

³⁹ “He who sees diversity here, in this world, moves from death to death” (*BĀU* 4. 4. 19). The words suggest that it is still the relations with the others that implies recurrent death.

c19.s3.39

⁴⁰ *JB* 2. 69–70 (Auswahl no. 128). In *JUB* 2. 10. 1 it is made clear that the Prajāpati-Mṛtyu contest continues the older idea of the contest between devas and asuras.

c19.s3.40

41. *PB* 16. 7.

c19.s3.41

42. This means also that the agonistic rites have in fact no place in the classical ritual. Thus, for instance, the chariot race is relegated to the outskirts of the ritual. *JB* 2. 193, dealing with the vājapeya, even discusses the question whether one should perform it, because “those who go outside the vedi stray from the sacrifice.” It is also typical that in this connection the chariot race is equated with a liturgical element, the *rathaṃtara* melody, whose name recalls the chariot, *ratha*. In the case of the vājapeya, the chariot race is preserved. The *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa* in this instance recommends that it be observed in both ways: the liturgical “race” of the gods (the rathaṃtara) and the real race of man. But elsewhere the substitution has been completed, as in the case of the sādyaskras, mentioned above, to which the viśvajicchilpa also belongs. In this ceremony, the chariots are replaced by simple liturgical “wheels” (*PB* 16. 15. 3–4).

c19.s3.42

43. Cf. *ŚB* 10. 5. 2. 23; 10. 6. 5. 8; *BĀU* 1. 2. 5.

c19.s3.43

44. Cf. W. Caland, *Altindische Zauberei* (Amsterdam, 1908), no. 117; *MS* 2. 2. 6.

c19.s3.44

45. Instances of this kind can easily be multiplied. In the first instance, we may think here of the *sava* ceremonies involving an unction, such as the rājasūya, where we see the rival actively participating in the unction ritual. The vrātyastomas may also be quoted. It is also interesting that the *tānūnaptra* rite in the normal Soma sacrifice (Caland and Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma*, no. 45) is mythologically explained in the same way as the saṃjñāneṣṭi (cf. the *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā* passage quoted above with *MS.* 3. 7. 10).

c19.s3.45

46. cr. also '*SB* 11. 1. 8. 6.

c19.s3.46

47. *BĀU* 3. 2. 13; 4. 4. 5.

c19.s3.47

48. On the individual, inalienable quality of karma, cf. also *Mbh* 12. 321. 47, 58: *Na tatra saṃviyujyate svakarmabhiḥ parasparam*, “One is not separated from one's works” or “One does nos exchange one's work with another.”

c19.s3.48

49. Cf. also *ŚB* 12. 8. 1. 17, “Where the trunk is pure, the limbs are pure,” said of yajamāna and officiants. The development of ritual thinking naturally left its imprint on the ritualists' view of the dakṣiṇā. *ĀpŚS* 21. 1. 5–7 gives two diametrically opposed views. “One should not officiate (for a yajamāna) at the twelve-day sacrifice, so as to avoid evil” (because through accepting the dakṣiṇās one would “eat what falls off from the head” of the yajamāna [*TS* 7. 2. 10. 4]). In this statement, the preclassical idea is reflected. The adaptation to the classical line of thinking is given in the next statement: “Prospers who gives (at a twelve-day sacrifice); prospers who accepts” (*KS* 34. 9, cf. *JB* 3. 4). *AB* 4. 25. 2 also expresses this latter opinion, but it is interesting that this is mythologically explained by the exchange between Prajāpati and the months, mentioned above, section 4. Reinterpretation is all but palpable here. Through their exchanges, Prajāpati and the months “become firmly established in each other.” This leads straight up to the classical doctrine: Prajāpati and the months are no longer different from each other. Prajāpati is the whole, the year, of which the months and the seasons are the integral parts.

c19.s3.49

50. According to *BaudhŚS* 18. 25, the saṃjñāneṣṭi was part of the vratya alliance ritual.

c19.s3.50

51. Cf. *ŚB* 14. 1. 1. 32.

c19.s3.51

52. The loss in meaning that the sacrificer-officiant bond underwent in the classical doctrine seems to be underlined by the ritual dissolution of the bond at the end of the Soma sacrifice (Caland and Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma*, no. 251), corresponding to the tānūnaptra rite at the beginning. It is perhaps significant that Caland notes (*ĀpŚS* 13. 18. 2) that there is no older authority for this rite of dissolution. In the classical doctrine, the sacrifice is a closed circuit and stands outside the religious life of the community as a whole. Theoretically there is a possibility here for a viable relationship between patron and officiant. The patron is transformed into a brahmin for the duration of the sacrifice through the dīkṣā (in the classical doctrine it is the dīkṣā, not the sacrifice, that purifies the patron and transforms him into a brahmin). At the end of the ceremony, he returns to his previous status and the bond with the officiants is dissolved. But viewed in this way, the patron-officiant relationship is merely theoretical. The only practical point is that the dakṣiṇās stay with the officiant. The officiant might, in his turn, act as a patron, but this would imply a relapse into the dualist system of exchanges. The classical system, when fully developed, had sealed its own end.

c19.s3.52

53. Mauss, “Essai sur le don,” 243, n. 3.

c19.s3.53

54. *AśvGS* 4. 7. 3; *Manu* 3. 177.

c19.s3.54

55. *Manu* 3. 148.

c19.s3.55

56. *Manu* 3. 125–26.

c19.s3.56

57. *Manu* 3. 138ff.; *Mbh* 13. 90. 41ff.

c19.s3.57

58. *ĀpDhS* 2. 17. 8–9; *Manu* 3. 141; *Mbh* 13. 90. 46.

c19.s3.58

59. This would seem to be reason why the *Mīmāṃsā*, after discussing the point, decides that the dakṣiṇā is not a gift but a salary for services rendered (see Charles Malamoud, “Terminer le sacrifice,” in *Le Sacrifice dans l’Inde ancienne*, ed. Madeline Biardeau and Charles Malamoud [Paris, 1976], 155–204, esp. 179–82). This view, which makes the service and its payment an incidental transaction, “desacralizes” the dakṣiṇā and thereby neutralizes the danger the gift holds for the brahmin’s purity and independence.

c19.s3.59

60. *Vyāvṛtya* (*TB* 2. 2. 5. 1).

c19.s3.60

61. Mauss, “Essai sur le don,” 248f.

c19.s3.61

62. *ŚB* 13. 4. 3. 14.

c19.s3.62

63. *JB* 3. 94–95 (Auswahl no. 180); *PB* 13. 3. 12.

c19.s3.63

64. *Manu* 4. 218; *Mbh* 13. 35. 23.

c19.s3.64

65. *Manu* 3. 64, 153; 4. 85f.

c19.s3.65

66. E.g., *Mbh* 13. 93. 130; 94. 33.

c19.s3.66

67. *Mbh* 12. 767.

c19.s3.67

68. The commentary of Nandanācārya reads *dānayuddhāpradhānāśca*, “very liberal men and those delighting in strife.” One is tempted to render it as: “those engaging in gift-giving contests,” because nothing could be wrong with liberality, unless it were in an agonistic context.

c19.s3.68

69. *Manu* 4. 205.

c19.s3.69

70. *Manu* 3. 130, 132.

c19.s3.70

71. *AŚ* 3. 10. 44. Cf. S. C. Dube, *The Indian Village* (London 1955), 116. Hereditary ritual office is sometimes held by caste fellows, as for instance the dasayas of the vokkaliga caste. See also T. S. Epstein, *Economic Development and Social Change* (Manchester, 1962), 136.

c19.s3.71

72. By interiorization I do not mean to suggest a dichotomy between “external” and “internal” sacrifice or the replacement of the former by the latter. The ritual act is both, as is shown, e. g., by *ŚB* 10. 4. 3. 9, where the agnicayana ritual is both “internal” knowledge (*vidyā*) and “external” act. The differentiation arose as a result of the ritual’s interiorization and could be valid only from the point of view of the individualized sacrifice (cf. J. F. Staal, *Advaita and Neoplatonism* [Madras 1961], 71f.)

c19.s3.72

73. See Louis Dumont, “World Renunciation in Indian Religions,” *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 4 (1960): 33–62. Dumont endeavors to build up a unified picture of Hinduism by viewing it as “the dialogue between the renouncer and the man-in-the-world.”

c19.s3.73

74. Cf. *BĀU* 4. 5. 15.

c19.s3.74

75. *BhG* 6. 29. For this expression and for related ones referring to the vision of the self (seeing the self in the self, through the self), cf. P. Hacker, *Saeculum* 12 (1961): 371ff.

c19.s3.75

76. *Manu* 6. 25, 38.

c19.s3.76

77. *BaudhDhS* 2. 18. 8–9. The ātmayajña is closely connected, if not identical, with the so-called *prāṇāgnihotra*, the offering of food in the (fires) of the breaths (*prāṇa*), i.e., a ritualized form of taking food. For the internal or mental sacrifice, see J. Varenne, *La Mahā-Nārāyaṇa-Upaniṣad*, (Paris, 1960), 2: 53. For the prāṇāgnihotra see the texts collected by Varenne, ibid., 69ff., and H. W. Bodewitz, *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa 1. 1–65, with a Study of Agnihotra and Prāṇāgnihotra* (Leiden, 1973). Though the ātmayajña in Baudhāyana’s dharma-sūtra is explicitly meant for the renouncer, Bodewitz points out that the prāṇāgnihotra is equally available to the brahmin householder and that consequently there need not be a specific, close connection with renunciation (ibid., 323). For our purpose, however, the essential point is the inner logic of the development that led from “external” to “internal” sacrifice. The latter promises independence from the outside world. Because of his extrasocial otherworldly stance, this is of no less importance for the brahmin householder than it is for the renouncer (see also chapter 6, section 8).

c19.s3.77

78. M. Winternitz (“Zur Lehre von den Āśramas,” *Festschrift für Hermann Jacobi* [Bonn 1926]) and F. Weinrich (“Entwicklung und Theorie der Āśrama Lehre,” *Archiv für Religionswissenschaft* 27 [1929]) emphasize the opposition between brahmin orthodoxy and renunciation. Cf. also the guarded pronouncements of Renou and Filliozat, *L'Inde Classique*, nos. 768, 1236.

c19.s3.78

79. On brahmacārin and vrātya, cf. M. Bloomfield, *The Atharvaveda and the Gopatha Brahmana* (Strassburg, 1909), 94. J. W. Hauer rejects this connection on the ground that the vrātya book, AV 15, does not mention brahmacarya (*Der Vrātya* [Stuttgart, 1927], 16.f.). Hauer further considers the vrātya as an exponent of non-brahminical religion and therefore has to separate him rigidly from the brahmacārin. In my opinion, both vrātya and brahmacārin belong to the preclassical stage of development, where the meaning of brahmacārin was certainly not yet limited to that of a young man learning the Vedas. On the vrātya as predecessor of the classical dīkṣita, see my “Vrātya and Sacrifice,” 11ff.

c19.s3.79

80. *JB* 2. 183. Cf. *ĀpŚS* 17. 26. 14ff.

c19.s3.80

81. On *jana*, see above, note 38.

c19.s3.81

82. On the exiled king, see W. Rau, *Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien* (Wiesbaden, 1957), 129.

c19.s3.82

83. *Mbh* 12. 10. 17.

c19.s3.83

84. *ŚāṅkhŚS* 16. 15. 20f. Cf. *ĀpŚS* 20. 24. 16; *ŚB* 13. 6. 2. 20 (where the rule obtains for the puruṣamedha).

c19.s3.84

85. *Maitrī Upaniṣad* 1. 1; 6. 26.

c19.s3.85

86. *Manu* 6. 83 prescribes the recitation of texts bearing on (a) ritual equivalences (*adhiyajñam brahma*), (b) macrocosmic equivalences (*ādhidaivikam*), (c) the equivalences referring to the self (*ādhyātmikam*), and (d) vedānta (*vedāntābhihitaṃ ca yat*). A hierarchical gradation seems to be intended, building up to the meditation on the (interiorized) ritual.

c19.s3.86

87. Chapters 12 and 25, quoted by L. Alsdorf, *Beiträge zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung* (Wiesbaden, 1962), 47f. It is interesting to note that the Jaina monk appears on the place of sacrifice to ask for a share of the sacrificial meal. His upbraiding of the sacrificing brahmins strangely recalls the figure of the "reviler" in the mahāvrata (*PB* 5. 5. 13, see also below, chap. 5, sect. 5). It is tempting to see in the monk's appearance on the place of sacrifice a distant echo of the preclassical pattern of ritual.

c19.s3.87

88\. There can be difference of opinion on doctrines and practices, and these differences have often taken the form of remarkably acrimonious disputes and rivalries. But these conflicts differ from "worldly" conflicts. They turn ostensibly on doctrine. Conflict in society concerns one's place, rights, and duties in the community, but it presupposes one's belonging to it. Doctrinal conflict, on the other hand, makes one's belonging dependent on allegiance to the right doctrine. It brings the individual and his choice into sharp focus. Thus the sharply profiled contrast or conflict between the householder-sacrificer and the renouncer is not identical with the divide between the social world and world renunciation. Even if the householder-sacrificer can be made out to stand for society, his opposition to the renouncer proper is primarily one of doctrine. Both partake of the individualized sphere characterized by renunciatory values. Their conflict is fought on the other, nonworldly side of the barrier.

c19.s3.88

89\. Of the vānaprastha it is said that he should always give but not receive (*dātā nityam anādātā*), (*Manu* 6. 8). The sannyāsin, on the other hand, receives gifts but does not give (*Kaṭhaśruti Upaniṣad* 3). The pivotal point seems to be that relations of reciprocity involving gift exchanges are barred. *Manu* 1. 88 (cf. 10. 75) describes the activities of the (ideal) brahmin as teaching and learning, sacrificing and officiating, giving and receiving. At first sight, this would seem to go straight against the renunciatory ideology. In the first place, if this statement refers to reciprocal relations (which seems doubtful), it is clear that such relations would only be possible for the brahmin within the brahmin community. However, from the following verses dealing with the activities of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas another interpretation seems to emerge. Out of the six activities allowed to the brahmin only three are allowed to the kṣatriya and vaiśya: learning, sacrificing, and giving. That is, only the brahmin is complete and independent in that he alone encompasses both sides of the relationships involved.

c19.s3.89

90\. *Mbh* 3. 206. 33ff.

c19.s3.90

91\. *Mbh* 12. 261. 19ff.

c19.s3.91

92\. *Manu* 12. 125; cf. 12. 91, 118.

c19.s3.92

93\. *BhG* 6. 29.

c19.s3.93

94\. *Mbh* 12. 237. 11.

c19.s3.94

95\. *Mbh* 13. 90. 43; *Manu* 3. 138.

c19.s3.95

96\. *Mbh* 13. 90. 38.

c19.s3.96

97\. *Manu* 3. 135.

c19.s3.97

98\. *BĀU* 4. 4. 23.

c19.s3.98

99\. *TB* 2. 3. 2. 1.

c19.s3.99

100\. This does not mean, of course, that the actual brahmin is necessarily a renouncer; usually he is not. But it is the ideal image of the brahmin that is the mainspring of brahminical prestige. Brahminization (I prefer this term to Sanskritization) is therefore not simply the imitation of the local brahmin; it refers to the ideal brahmin. The non-brahmin is thus enabled to "out-brahmin" the brahmin. To a great extent, this may be the ideological background of "anti-brahminical" movements, past as well as present.

Linked texts (26)