Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s9: Chapter Eight

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s9

Language
English

Chapter Eight

c19.s9.1

1. The material on the ancient Indian oligarchies has been conveniently assembled by J. P. Sharma, *Republics in Ancient India*, (Leiden, 1968). The title implies an emphasis on the difference between “republics” and “monarchies,” in my opinion, an overemphasis. See also chapter 10, section 4.

c19.s9.2

2. For instance, A. S. Altekar, *State and Government in Ancient India*, (Benares, 1949); U. N. Ghoshal, *A History of Indian Political Ideas* (Bombay, 1959). It should be recognized that scholarly works of this type had an obvious place and function in the wider context of modern national thinking, which necessitated a rethinking of the received texts. In this respect, these works are akin to much of nineteenth-century European historiography. It may also be a sign of the changing times that Indian historians are at present directing their attention to social and economic history rather than to ancient political institutions.

c19.s9.3

³ Cf., e.g., *Nārada Smṛti* 18. 20; *Mbh* 3. 185. 26.

c19.s9.4

⁴ *Mbh* 1. 42. 27–31.

c19.s9.5

⁵ *Nāṙada* 18. 21.

c19.s9.6

⁶ *Mbh* 12. 63. 25.

c19.s9.7

⁷ *Mbh* 1. 41. 27; 105. 44; 5. 39. 78; 12. 67. 4; *Rām* 2. 67. 9ff.

c19.s9.8

⁸ See W. Rau, *Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien* (Wiesbaden, 1957), 34, 59ff., 104.

c19.s9.9

⁹ *Manu* 4. 85–86; cf. *Mbh* 13. 126.

c19.s9.10

⁹ Since the *Manu* passage is preceded by a reference to the non-kṣatriya king, it might be thought that the following condemnation of the king equally refers to the non-kṣatriya king. Thus, for instance, Robert Lingat, *Les Sources du droit traditionel de l’Inde*, (Paris, 1967), 234. However, in other passages, it is the king in general who is condemned. Moreover, his

c19.s9.11

being a kṣatriya would not make things any better, for the kṣatriya is reputed to perpetrate all sorts of impure and sinful acts, so that the brahmin is forbidden to officiate for him at the daily agnihotra. See chapter 6, section 7.

c19.s9.12

10. *Mbh* 12. 228. 78; *AŚ* 1. 15. 3. Cf. J. J. Meyer, *Trilogie altindischer Mächte der Vegetation* (Zürich, 1937), 2: 129f.

c19.s9.13

11. *Viṣṇu Purāṇa* 1. 13. 16–18. See also below, note 22.

c19.s9.14

12. *RV* 10. 93. 14. Cf. also *AV* 4. 1. 1, where Vena is said to have disclosed the *bráhman*.

c19.s9.15

13. *Manu* 7. 9.

c19.s9.16

14. See J. Gonda, “Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View,” *Numen* 3 (1956): 56.

c19.s9.17

15. *AV* 11. 5. 17.

c19.s9.18

16. E.g., *Manu* 7. 4–7 (Indra, Vāyu, Yama, Āditya, Agni, Varuṇa, Soma, and Kubera); *Rām* 3. 40. 12 (Agni, Indra, Soma, Yana, and Varuṇa); *Mbh* 12. 68. 41ff. (Agni, Āditya, Mṛtyu, Vaiśravaṇa, and Yama); *Nārada* 18. 26 (Agni, Indra, Soma, Yama, and Kubera).

c19.s9.19

17. *Manu* 7. 8.

c19.s9.20

18. *Mbh* 12. 59. 131.

c19.s9.21

19. *RV* 10. 164. 50.

c19.s9.22

20. E. g., *Manu* 5. 93; 8. 311; *Vās* 18. 48; 19. 2; *AŚ* 1. 19. 33. For the purāṇic royal rituals and conception of kingship, see R. Inden, “Ritual, Authority, and Cyclic Time,” in *Kingship and Authority in South Asia*, ed. J. F. Richards (Madison, Wisc., 1978), 28–73.

c19.s9.23

21. Lingat, *Les Sources du droit*, 260–62.

c19.s9.24

22. According to *Harivaṃśa* 5, Vena indeed proclaims himself to be the only recipient and celebrant as well as the sacrifice itself: *aham ijyaśca yaṣṭā ca yajñaśca*. On the sacrality of kingship, see also below chapter 10, section 6.

c19.s9.25

23. See J. C. Heesterman, “Priesthood and the Brahmin”, *Contributions to Indian Sociology*, n.s. 5 (1971): 43–47; also above, chapter 2, section 9.

c19.s9.26

24. See *Manu* 7. 2, which reserves kingship for the kṣatriya, who has duly received the *brāhma-saṃskāra-*. Most commentators do not take this *saṃskāra* to be the rājasūya or another abhiṣeka but the *upanayana*, which any member of the “twice-born” varṇas must undergo (Lingat, *Les Sources du droit*, 234, n. 1).

c19.s9.27

25. See J. C. Heesterman, “Opferwildnis und Ritual Ordnung,” in *Epiphanie des Heils*, ed. Gerhard Oberhammer (Vienna, 1982), 13–25; also above, chapter 6, section 7.

c19.s9.28

26. See J. C. Heesterman, *The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration* (The Hague, 1957), 75–78.

c19.s9.29

27. See E. Benveniste, *Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes* (Paris, 1969), 2: 7–15.

c19.s9.30

28. Rau, *Staat und Gesellschaft*, 68–70.

c19.s9.31

29. Lingat, *Les Sources du droit*, 235.

c19.s9.32

30. Herein, it would seem, lies the essential difference with Machiavelli, who decisively breaks away from the concept of politics as part and parcel of the scholastic *philosophia ethica* (or *moralis*). Kauṭilya’s sobriquet “Indian Machiavelli” is all too glib.

c19.s9.33

31. Cf., e.g., *ŚB* 4. 1. 4. 3, 6.

c19.s9.34

32. See also below, chapter 10, section 9. I am indebted for this view to the works of Louis Dumont (see in particular “World Renunciation in Indian Religions,” *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 4 [1964]: 33–62). I differ, however, with respect to the brahmin, whom Dumont views as the opposite of the renouncer, while my reading of the texts puts him on a par with the renouncer (cf. above, chapter 1, esp. n. 8, and "Priesthood and the Brahmin.")
33. *Mbh* 12. 69. 79ff.; 70. 6–25; 92. 6; 139. 10; *Manu* 9. 301f.
34. See Hesterman, *Consecration*, 143–46, 151–56.
35. *Ibid.*, 156.
36. See, e.g., the passages quoted by Rau, *Staat und Gesellschaft*, 59–61.
37. *AŚ* 6. 2. 22–28; *Manu* 7. 155–58; also Harmut Scharfe, *Die Staatsrechtslehre des Kauṭalya* (Wiesbaden, 1968), 120–27. See also below, chapter 10, section 5.
38. *AŚ* 6. 2. 39.
39. Scharfe, *Die Staatsrechtslehre*, 125f,
40. *Viṣṇu Smṛti* 3. 28, 48; *Yājñavalkya* 1. 335–37.
41. Lingat, *Les Sources du droit*, 256.
42. *Manu* 7. 54ff; *Mbh* 12. 87. 7ff.
43. *Mbh* 5. 34. 38.
44. *AB* 8. 17. 5.
45. E.g., *Mbh* 13. 85. 35; *Śukranīti* 2. 274. cf. also *Jātakas*, nos. 73, 432. The problem may be compared to that of kingship-by-the-grace-of-God and the right of resistance (see O. Brunner, "Vom Gottesgnadentum zum monarchischen Prinzip," in *Die Entstehung des modernen Souveränen Staates*, ed. H. H. Hoffman [Cologne and Berlin, 1967], 115–136).
46. On the much debated question of the king's "legislative" authority, see Lingat, *Les Sources du droit*, 251ff.
47. *Manu* 7. 203; *Yājñavalkya* 1. 342.
48. *Manu* 8. 41; *Yājñavalkya* 2. 192; *Nārada* 13. 2; *Bṛhaspati* 2. 28.
49. *Manu* 8. 46.
50. *ĀpDhS* 1. 7. 20. 6.
51. *ĀpDhS* 1. 7. 20. 7.
52. On the so-called Tegernseer Ludus or Ludus de Antichristo, see K. Langosch, *Lateinische Dramen des Mittelalters* (Darmstadt, 1961), 216: *Deponam vetera, nova iura dictabo*.
53. *Manu* 7. 13; 9. 275; *Yājñavalkya* 2. 186. The commentators are generally at pains to restrict this to occasional orders regarding, for example, the organization of festivals; one may also think of what we call administrative law. But the point to bear in mind is that the texts do not make such distinctions; dharma has to comprehend all or nothing. Moreover, elsewhere the king is instructed to prohibit those customs that are contrary to his wishes or interests (*Nārada* 10. 4).
54. *AŚ* 3. 1. 39. Further on, however, the same text does not mention rājaśāsana as a source of law (3. 1. 43).
55. *Mbh* 12. 59. 87ff.
56. Probably the next cycle of seven kings (or eight, if Visnu, the divine founder, is counted as the first, as the text does) should start with equally dismal risks and failures. The number seven recalls the seven kings of Rome.
57. *Mbh* 12. 67. Cf. also the Buddhist notion of the king as the *mahāsammata* (see Ghoshal, *Political Ideas*, 258–60, and the interesting observations of Louis Dumont, "The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India," *Contributions to Indian Sociology* 6 (1962): 61–64, contrasting the Buddhist and the brahmanic view).
58. *AB* 8. 5. 1. Cf. also *Viṣṇu Dharmottara Purāṇa* 1. 162, which prescribes the yearly repetition of the abhiṣeka.

c19.s9.35

59. See, e.g., B. Stein, "Integration of the Agrarian System of South India," in *Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History*, ed. R. E. Frykenberg (Madison, 1969), 175–216, which clearly bears out the importance of the opposition.
60. *Mbh* 3. 314.
61. See N. Falk, "Wilderness and Kingship in Ancient South Asia," *History of Religions* 13 (1973): 1–15, which deals mostly with Buddhist materials. We may also think of the wilderness as the "conquest of kings" (*TB* 1. 7. 3. 8: *rājñām áraṇyam abhíjitam*), which can help us understand why one should ask the king for a place of sacrifice although it is situated outside the grāma, in the wilds (cf. W. Caland and V. Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma* [Paris, 1906], 6). The soma plant, which in the context of the ritual is referred to as "the king," very clearly belongs to the jungle.
62. *Grāme dīkṣate, araṇye yajate* (quoted by Caland and Henry, ibid., 26). The texts give detailed instructions for the march toward the place of sacrifice.
63. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, 71, 95, 116.
64. Ibid., 147. I have suggested that the unction in the rājasūya originally took place while the king was seated on the throne. Such unctions on the throne do indeed occur in similar rituals, but in the rājasūya, as the texts describe it, unction and enthronization are separated by a significant intervening rite. I shall try to show that this is not accidental.
65. For instance, Rau, *Staat und Gesellschraft*, 89f.
66. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, chap. 16.
67. Ibid., 91, 98, 226. Originally the ritual will have been a public, cyclically repeated regeneration festival. In the textual form we know, however, the public is excluded, sacrifice having become a purely private affair. Against this background, we can understand why, as already noted, the king *qua talis* has no place in the ritual except as a sacrificer like any other. In this way, we may also understand why the rājasūya, or even the single abhiṣeka, is not considered by the majority of commentators on *Manu* 7.2 to be the decisive royal "sacrament" (cf. note 24 above). In fact, though there are many rites that might be used (generically known as *Sava*), there is none that is specifically prescribed for the purpose.
68. *Manu* 11. 11–15.
69. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, 191.
70. *TB* 1. 8. 4. In fact, there may even be two cycles: one formed by unction, saṃsṛps, and daśapeya, the other, greater one by unction-daśapeya (these two being formally connected by the use of the same lot of soma stalks acquired at the outset of the unction festival), prayujāṃ havīṃṣi, and the haircutting solemnity.
71. *ĀpŚS* 22. 28. 2–10.
72. *BaudhŚS* 11. 7; 74. 10, 75. 8; 11. 12; 81. 2.
73. *ĀpŚS* 18. 4. 12–6. 6.
74. *ĀpŚS* 18. 7. 17.
75. *ŚB* 5. 2. 1. 19.
76. *Vaikhānasa Srautasūtra* 17. 18; 248. 2: *kṣatravṛttiṃ nivartayet*.
77. *Lāṭyāyana Srautasūtra* 18. 7. 10; 18. 12. 1.
78. *Vādhūlasūtra*, in W. Caland, *Acta Orientalia* 4 (1926): 168f.
79. Ibid., 169.
80. *AB* 8. 10–11.
81. *AB* 8. 21.
82. See Caland and Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma*, 19.
83. *TS* 6. 1. 4. 1; *MS* 3. 6. 8: 70. 16; *KS* 23. 4: 79. 11.
84. For the scepter, see Benveniste, *Vocabulaire*, 2: 29–32. In this way, we can perhaps also understand the carrying of the daṇḍa at the division of the inheritance, because division of inheritance implies departure and settling elsewhere (*Kauśikasūtra* 23. 9–11).

c19.s9.36

85. See Heesterman, "Vrātya and Sacrifice," *Indo-Iranian Journal* 6 (1962): 1–37.

c19.s9.37

86. There are different possible moments for handing over the daṇḍa to the maitrāvaruṇa: see *ĀpŚS* 10. 27. 2 (after the buying of the soma; ibid. 11. 18. 6 (at the end of the "intermediate dīkṣā"); *MānŚS* 2. 2. 5. 7 (after the pravara of the agnīṣomīya animal sacrifice).

c19.s9.38

87. Heesterman, *Consecration*, 202.

c19.s9.39

88. Cf. *ŚB* 5. 3. 4. 12; 5. 4. 3. 2, 21; *TS* 5. 6. 2. 1; *TB* 2. 7. 6. 1; *ŚāṅkhŚS* 15. 13. 4.

c19.s9.40

89. Cf. *ŚB* 5. 4. 3. 2; 5. 4. 5. 1; *TB* 1. 8. 1. 1; 1. 8. 5. 1; *MS* 4. 3. 9: 49. 4; *PB* 18. 9. 1; *JB* 2. 202. See also, Heesterman, *Consecration*, 177. This is not the place to go into the matter, but it may be observed in passing that there seems to be an interesting alternation between Varuṇa and Indra. The strength that Varuṇa loses is his *indriya-vīrya*-, his Indra-power. It is Indra who then consistently takes over, or is born out of the sacrifice, and starts out on the warrior phase. In this connection, it is interesting that the rājasūya's unction festival is especially dedicated to Varuṇa, "for it is Varuṇa whom they consecrate" (*ŚāṅkhŚS* 15. 13. 4). But the cow sacrifice, which comes after the unction festival and precedes the saṃsṛp offerings and which in the Soma ritual is normally performed for Mitra and Varuṇa, is here dedicated to Indra, who is said to be born out of it (Heesterman, *Consecration*, 170). That is, Indra is born after the disintegration of Varuṇa, at the start of the warrior phase. Moreover, the cow sacrifice seems to have been one of the possible "boxes" of the abhiṣeka, as indeed it seems to be in the punarabhiṣeka of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* (8. 5. 1–2). On the return Varuṇa takes over again, as seems to be borne out by another ritual, namely the *Varuṇa-praghāsa*, which apparently referred originally to the return of a war band at the end of the hot season (see below chap. 9). The handing over of the daṇḍa to the maitrāvaruṇa officiant seems to point in the same direction. Varuṇa, then, seems to be connected with the enthronement, which may explain the vacillation in the rājasūya as to whether the unction should be performed on the throne. According to *JB* 3. 152, Varuṇa, wishing to become king, goes out to be taught by Prajāpati—in other words, to obtain authority—and on his return is honored by the gods, who place him on the throne and then give the abhiṣeka. Moreover, when the king has sat down on the throne, he is equated to Varuṇa (*TS* 1. 8. 16f.).

c19.s9.41

90. *Mbh* 2. 12; 1. 46; 9. 49; 9. 50; *Rām* 7. 83. See also H. Gehrts, *Mahābhārata: Das Geschehen und seine Bedeutung* (Bonn, 1975), 166.

c19.s9.42

91. *Mbh* 14. 3. For the aśvamedha as a penance for slaying a brahmin, cf. *Manu* 11. 75, 83.

c19.s9.43

92. Elsewhere I have called the cyclical pattern of ritual "preclassical" (see above, chap. 2).

c19.s9.44

93. See below, chapter 10, section 7.

c19.s9.45

94. *Mbh* 12. 99. 12.

c19.s9.46

95. *Mbh* 12. 103. 16–22.

c19.s9.47

96. See above, chapter 2, section 3.

c19.s9.48

97. See *ĀpŚS* 20. 2. 12f.

c19.s9.49

98. Cf. *Bṛhaspati* 1. 23. 17–19; *KātyŚS* 801.

c19.s9.50

99. See S. N. Biswas, "Über das Vrātya Problem in der Vedischen Ritualliteratur," *Zeitschrrift der Deutschen Morgenlämdische Gesellschaft* 105 (1955): 53f.;

c19.s9.51

also Heesterman, “Vrātya and Sacrifice,” *Indo-Iranian Journal* 6 (1962): 27–29.

c19.s9.52

100. On the concept of *brahman*, cf. L. Renou, “La Notion de *brahman*,” *Journal Asiatique*, 1949, 7ff.; P. Thieme, “Brahman,” *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlämdishe Gesellschraft* 102 (1952): 91ff. Also see above, chapter 5.

c19.s9.53

101. *JB* 2. 55–56, (Auswahl no. 125). For Hṛtsvāśaya Āllakeya as a king of the Mahāvṛsas, see *JB* 1. 234 (Auswahl no. 87).

c19.s9.54

102. Cf. *JB* 1. 341, where the text's lectio facilior *śārdūlājinam* should be amended to *śāmūlājinam*.

Linked texts (32)