The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s3.48

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.