Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s4: Chapter Three

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s4

Language
English

Chapter Three

c19.s4.1

1\. Cf. H. Oldenberg, *Die Weltanschauung der Brāhmaṇa-Texte* (Göttingen, 1919), 150; S. Lévi, *La Doctrine du sacrifice* (Paris, 1909), 9. Also, above, chapter 2, section 6.

c19.s4.2

2. E.g., at the agnyādheya, *ĀpŚS* 5. 10. 4; at the sādyaskra, ibid. 22. 3. 13–14. See chapter 2, section 3.

c19.s4.3

3. *ŚB* 3. 8. 3. 11, 28–29; cf. *TS* 6. 3. 7. 4; *MS* 3. 10. 3. See also K. Rönnow, "Zur Erklärung des Pravargya, des Agnicayana und der Sautrāmaṇī," *Monde Oriental* 25 (1930): 137.

c19.s4.4

4. E.g., *ŚB* 1. 2. 1. 2; *TB* 3. 2. 8. 3.

c19.s4.5

5. E.g., *ŚB* 1. 3. 3. 12.

c19.s4.6

6. E.g., *ŚB* 1. 4. 5. 5; 3. 7. 4. 7.

c19.s4.7

7. E.g., *KS* 24. 8; *ŚB* 3. 2. 3. 20.

c19.s4.8

8. E.g., *KS* 25. 8, 9, 10; 26. 1; *ŚB* 3. 5. 3. 2.

c19.s4.9

9. E.g., *TS* 6. 5. 1. 1–2; *KS* 27. 10.

c19.s4.10

10. E.g., *TS* 6. 4. 9. 1; *KS* 27. 4.

c19.s4.11

11. E.g., *KS* 29. 4.

c19.s4.12

12. E.g., *TS* 2. 1. 7. 1; *KS* 13. 8.

c19.s4.13

13. E.g., *ŚB* 14. 1. 1. 10; *KB* 8. 3.

c19.s4.14

14. J. C. Heesterman, *The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration* (The Hague, 1957), 222ff.

c19.s4.15

15. See chapter 2, section 6. The actual killing of the victim is performed outside the place of sacrifice, the technical terms is, euphemistally, *samjñapayati*, "to cause to consent," while for sacrificing an animal the term *ālabhate*, "to take hold of," is used.

c19.s4.16

16. A. Bergaigne, *La Religion Védique*, reprinted. (Paris, 1963), 2: 80–83.

c19.s4.17

17. Only Namuci is characterized as a demon throughout. Dadhyañc puts his head at the disposal of the devas to conquer the asuras. Makha is identified with Viṣṇu, who also is an intermediary, for instance, in his role at the churning of the ocean. Viśvarūpa, "sister's son of the asuras," officiates for the devas while secretly promising a share to the asuras.

c19.s4.18

¹⁸ On these myths, see Rönnow, "Zur Erklärung." On Dadhyañc, cf. also F. D. K. Bosch, "De god met de paardekop," *Tijdschrift Bataviaas Genootschap* 67 (1927): 124–53.

c19.s4.19

¹⁹ His name connects him with the curdled milk, cf. F. B. J. Kuiper, "The Three Sanskrit roots *añc*- /añj-" *Vāk* 2 (1952): 63 ("showing the curdled milk")

c19.s4.20

²⁰ In *RV* 10. 8. 9, Indra not only cuts off Viśvarūpa's three heads but also drives away his cattle. Wealth in cattle being the substance of sacrifice, this feature of Indra's heroic act aptly illustrates the actual treasure associated with the "head of the sacrifice." On Viśvarupa, see A. Hillebrandt, *Vedische Mythologie* (Breslau, 1929), 2: 206, 384–86.

c19.s4.21

²¹ On Makha, see the materials in J. Gonda, *Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism* (Utrecht, 1954), 167f. Though the etymology remains unclear (cf. M. Mayrhofer, *Kurzgef. Etym. Wb. des Altindischen*, s.v.), Grassmann's rendering "Kämpfer" is still interesting. According to Renou, *makhá* is a "simple variante phonique du mot maghá," "wealth, gift" (*Et. Véd. et Pan.* 4: 62; 8: 69). If these notions of festival, contest, and wealth or gift are combined, Makha turns out to be a complete personification of the potlatch-like festival.

c19.s4.22

²² Cf. *ŚB* 14. 1. 1. 18, where it is said that Dadhyañc knew "this essence (*etaṃ śukram*), this sacrifice, how the head of the sacrifice is restored, how this sacrifice becomes complete."

c19.s4.23

²³ Cf. *TS* 6. 4. 9. 1; *MS* 4. 6. 2; *KS* 27. 4.

c19.s4.24

²⁴ The Aśvins are especially fond of the madhu beverage, *madhupātama* (*RV* 8. 22. 17).

c19.s4.25

²⁵ The notion of a contest for the secret also seems present in the version given in *ŚB* 14. 1. 1. 18–24. Indra forbade Dadhyañc to teach the secret on pain of having his head cut off. The Aśvins cheat Indra by giving Dadhyañc a horse's

c19.s4.26

head. Indra cuts off the horse's head, and the Aśvins restore Dadhyañc's own head.

c19.s4.27

26. P. Thieme, "Vorzarathustrisches bei den Zarathustriern," *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlämdische Geschicte* 107 (1957): 90. See also above, chapter 2, section 4, note 34.

c19.s4.28

27. And, one might add, in actual reality. One may compare contemporary "village festivals" involving or resulting in intervillage fighting. Intervillage fighting seems to be too much of a stereotype to be simply a question of a festival accidentally degenerating into a riot. The fighting seems to belong to the festival. See, e.g., A. R. Beals, "Conflict and Interlocal Festivals in a Southern Indian Region," *Journal of Asian Studies*, Supplement 23 (June 1964): 99–113.

c19.s4.29

28. A. Hillebrandt, *Ritualliteratur* (Strassburg, 1897), 80; See also my brief remarks in a review of L. Alsdorf, "Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung," *Indo-Iranian Journal* 9 (1966): 148.

c19.s4.30

29. For the identification sacrificer-victim, see, e.g., *TB* 2. 1. 5. 2.

c19.s4.31

30. *TS* 2. 5. 1–2; *KS* 12. 10; *MS* 2. 4. 1; *ŚB* 5. 6. 3. 1ff. See also above, note 20.

c19.s4.32

31. W. Caland, "Eine Vierte Mitteilung über das Vādhūlasūtra," *Acta Orientalia* 6 (1927): fragm. 108.

c19.s4.33

32. It would seem to me that in this third intermediary element resides the brahman. Its mythical representatives are characterized as brahmins; their slaying is a brahmahatyā.

c19.s4.34

33. In my opinion, this is implied when it is stated that at the end of the ceremony the sacrifice leaves the sacrificer, i.e., the host, and goes to the nonsacrificer, i.e., the guest (*TS* 6. 6. 7. 3; *MS* 4. 8. 6; *KS* 29. 4). *KS* 25. 10 calls the nonsacrificer *bhrātrvya*, "rival."

c19.s4.35

34. Thus also the sacrificer's consecration (*dīkṣā*) can only express the aspect of rebirth; its concomitant, death, is explicitly mentioned only in *JUB* 3. 9. 4, but it cannot be made tangible.

c19.s4.36

35. For a summary of this ritual, see Hillebrandt, *Ritualliteratur*, 161–65.

c19.s4.37

³⁶ The relevant passages are *ŚB* 6. 2. 1. 1–2. 15 and *KātyŚS* 16. 1. 1–43.

c19.s4.38

³⁷ *KātyŚS* 16. 1.

c19.s4.39

¹⁸ Cf. J. Schwab, *Das altindische Thieropfer* (Erlangen, 1886), 111ff.

c19.s4.40

³⁸ *KātyŚS* 16. 1. 33; *ŚB* 6. 2. 1. 37–39. *BaudhŚS* 22. 2: 119. 9 also mentions golden or clay heads. *Vādhūla* keeps the human head (obtained outside the ritual) but substitutes for the other victims animals made from flour (*piṣṭapaśu*) (Caland, *Acta Orientalia* 4 [1926]: 165).

c19.s4.41

³⁹ It is perhaps not without interest that his name occurs elsewhere in agonistic contexts (see A. H. Macdonnel and A. B. Keith, *Vedic Index* [London, 1912] s.v.) as does his ancestor's Sāyaka (cf. *JB* 1. 337).

c19.s4.42

⁴⁰ For the relevant passages, see *TS* 5. 1. 8 and 5. 5. 1. 1–4; *MS* 3. 1. 10 and 3. 2. 7; *KS* 19. 8 and 20. 8; *ĀpŚS* 16. 6. 2–8. 10; *BaudhŚS* 10. 9; 22. 2; 25. 29; *Vādhūla* (Caland's extracts 59 and 108–10, *Acta Orientalia* 4: 168f. and 6: 229–33); *MānŚS* 6. 1: 2. 23; 3. 1–17.

c19.s4.43

⁴¹ Cf. *Vādhūla*, extract 110: "Previously they used to immolate a man for Prajāpati." When the gods retired from the sacrifice, the human victim was replaced by a he-goat. Apparently there was a basic rule of five "animals" interpreted in different ways by the two branches of the Yajurveda. The Black Yajurveda fills out the number five by replacing the human victim with the Prajpāti he-goat. The more systematic White Yajurveda opts for the abstract solution and systematizes the five-animal sacrifice as it stands, taking over the substitute Prajāpati he-goat as an alter-

c19.s4.44

native to the complete five-animal sacrifice. The complete sacrifice apparently originated with the Black Yajurveda since it is ascribed, by *ŚB* 6. 2. 2. 1, to the Carakas. The Vāyu he-goat may have been an original alternative.

c19.s4.45

42. The following considerations, though not strictly necessary for the argument, should illustrate the full extent of the aporia created by the classical system of ritual.

c19.s4.46

Completing the sacrifice with all five victims obviously leaves open the problem of the heads. The problem is stated in these terms: on one hand, completing the sacrifice with all five victims would "exhaust" the heads; on the other hand, taking them out of the sacrifice would disrupt the ritual. The solution preferred by the Black Yajurveda is to have it both ways: start with all five, take four of them out after consecration, and complete the ritual only with the Prajāpati he-goat. Since the goat replaces the human victim, whose head is obtained in a nonsacrificial way, the sacrifice itself does not involve decapitation (*TS* 5. 1. 8. 3; *MS* 3. 1. 10; *KS* 19. 8). This comes as near as possible to squaring the vicious circle, except for the fact that taking out consecrated victims goes against the grain of the system's closed circuit. It implies the recognition that besides the closed universe of sacrifice something else, outside it, is needed to make it fulfill its purpose (as is also clear from the fact that the human head has to come from elsewhere).

c19.s4.47

The White Yajurveda knows a similar start-with-five, end-with-one rule, but it cannot serve the same purpose as in the Black Yajurveda. The White Yajurveda has opted for the complete system and nothing but the system. The head cannot be taken outside the sacrifice; nor is there any sense in substituting an animal for the human victim, since one would still have to obtain the human head from outside. The solution attempted is to sever and keep the five heads within the sacrifice but to throw four of the bodies into the water from which the clay for the construction of the altar is to be taken. In itself, this practice may be old; moreover, it neatly expresses the idea of cyclical disintegration and reintegration: disintegrated bodies are reconstructed in the form of the altar and joined again with the heads. In terms of the system, however, the rule seems to have a somewhat different meaning. As the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* puts it, by completing the sacrifice with all five victims, one "would reach the end of the fire altar," but one would not be able to collect the clay for building it (*ŚB* 6. 2. 1. 7, 13). That is, the sacrifice would be final and complete in itself (as it should be), but one would not be able to build the altar. Or, in other words, the sphere outside the sacrifice cannot be ignored. Whereas the Black Yajurveda acknowledges this fact by giving the outside sphere its due, the White Yajurveda has to integrate it. Throwing the bodies into the water, from where the clay is later taken, it extends the sacrificial sphere so as to include the outside world.

c19.s4.48

43. *BaudhŚS* 10. 9: 8. 8: *Dīvyanta, ṛṣabhaṃ pacante vṛṣṇiṃ ca bastaṃ ca.*

c19.s4.49

44. The moment is exactly indicated (*BaudhŚS* 10. 9: 8. 19), namely, after the acts described by Schwab, *Das altindische Thieropfer*, no. 26; cf. *BaudhŚS* 4. 3: 112. 9.

c19.s4.50

45. See J. C. Heestermann, "Vrātya and Sacrifice," *Indo-Iranian Journal* 6 (1962): 1–37.

c19.s4.51

⁴⁶ *BaudhŚS* 18. 24: 372. 4: *Te yam ajaṃ pramāthaṃ pacante, sa eṣāṃ paśuḥ.*

c19.s4.52

⁴⁷ *ĀpŚS* 16. 6. 2; *MānŚS* 6. 1. 2. 23.

c19.s4.53

⁴⁸ *BaudhŚS* 10. 9: 8. 7: *Saṃgrāme hatayor aśvasya ca vaiśyasya ca.*

c19.s4.54

⁴⁹ *ŚB* 6. 3. 3. 8; 4. 15.

c19.s4.55

⁵⁰ *KS* 22. 10 *Prajāpatir vā ukhyam agnim abibhas, tasya śiraḥ prāvartata, tena devā aśrāmyams, tasyaitacchiraḥ pratyādadhur yad ukhā.*

c19.s4.56

⁵¹ *ĀpŚS* 16. 27. 7.

c19.s4.57

52. *TS* 5. 1. 2–5; *MS* 3. 1. 3–6; *KS* 19. 2–5; *ŚB* 6. 3. 1. 22–4. 4. 22; *ĀpŚS* 16. 1–3; *BaudhŚS* 10. 1–4; *MānŚS* 6. 1. 1; *KātyŚS* 16. 2. 1–3. 13.

c19.s4.58

53. *MS* 3. 1. 3: *Áśvena vaí devá ágre víjitim vyàjayanta, yád áśvena yánty, víjityai*.

c19.s4.59

54. *TB* 2. 4. 2. 9.

c19.s4.60

55. *MS* 3. 1. 4; *ĀpŚS* 16. 2. 6.

c19.s4.61

56. *MS* 3. 1. 3: *Vā́jam evá téna tásmād vṛṅkte*. Cf. *KS* 19. 2; *TS* 5. 1. 2. 5. Vādhūla, *Acta Orientalia* 4 (1925): 163, even adds the words *Vā́jam te vṛñje*, “I wrest the force from you,” to the mantra.

c19.s4.62

57. *TS* 4. 1. 2h, k.

c19.s4.63

58. In the White Yajurveda, the place of the enemy is taken by an *anaddhāpuruṣa* (Eggeling: “shamman”) to whom the mantra is addressed and who accompanies the procession (*ŚB* 6. 3. 3. 4; 4. 4. 14). He is said to be the substitute the gods saw for the human victim, and the meaning of the word is somebody “who pleases neither gods, nor the fathers, nor men” (*ŚB* 6. 3. 1. 24). I am inclined to view this in the light of *MS* 4. 8. 6 (cf. *KS* 29. 4): *Vídevo vā́ ījānā́h, sádevó ʾnījānāḥ*, “The gods are absent from one who has offered sacrifice, they are with him who has not offered sacrifice.” In my opinion, the anaddhāpuruṣa represents the “host party” that has delivered “the head.” (On this word, cf. also D. S. Ruegg, “Védique *addhā́*,” *Journal Asiatique*, 1955, 167.

c19.s4.64

59. *MānŚS* 7. 1. 2. 36; *VārāhaŚS* 3. 1. 2. 3.

c19.s4.65

60. See also Heesterman, *Consecration*, 20, 167, 170.

c19.s4.66

61. *KS* 20. 8; *TS* 5. 1. 8. 1; *ĀpŚS* 16. 6. 3; *BaudhŚS* 10. 10: 9. 13. This, in my opinion, explains why the anthill is not used in the making of the ukhā, as is done in the case of the pravargya pot; the anthill is to be used in the ritual pertaining to the human head.

c19.s4.67

62. *BaudhŚS* (dvaidhasūtra) 22. 1: 117. 8.

c19.s4.68

63. See J. Gonda, *The Savayajñas* (Amsterdam, 1965), 224f., and the literature mentioned there.

c19.s4.69

64. Cf., e.g., *SB* 1. 2. 5. 17; 6. 3. 1. 38; 8. 5. 1. 25. Gonda notes the connection purīṣa-cattle.

c19.s4.70

65. *PB* 13. 4. 13.

c19.s4.71

66. *ĀpŚS* 2. 3. 5.

c19.s4.72

67. In this connection, it may be interesting that the words Baudhāyana uses for describing the posting of the vaiśya (*tāṃ dakṣiṇato gopāyann āste*) could be interpreted as “he keeps himself south of it (the anthill), acting as a cowherd.” The anthill and the loam pit thus seem to be simple emblems of what the systematized rite actually stands for, conquest of head and cattle (see also above, n. 20).

c19.s4.73

68. *MS* 4. 3. 5; *KS* 27. 10.

c19.s4.74

69. Heesterman, *Consecration*, 129.

c19.s4.75

70. Thus when *ŚB* 3. 8. 3. 28–29 characterizes offerings from the head as asuric and therefore prohibits them, this seems to indicate a rejection not of “asuric”religion, but of the dualistic pattern in which devas and asuras contend. The rival, the asura, is then excluded.

c19.s4.76

71. Cf., e.g., Louis Dumont, *Une sous caste de l’Inde du Sud* (The Hague, 1957), 378: “L’animal est décapité d’un coup d’aRuval. La dépouille, *le plus souvent la tête*, part du prêtre, reçoit une pūjā.”

Linked texts (15)