Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6: 2 Brahmin, Ritual, and Renouncer

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6

Language
English

Contents

2 Brahmin, Ritual, and Renouncer

c6.1

In Hindu society, the brahmin stands supreme. Though he is, at least in principle, divested of temporal power, he is superior even to the king. His is the absolute purity, the yardstick of the socioreligious hierarchy, in relation to which the nonbrahmin gauges his own status.¹ He can be said to be the measure of things. Not only do the classical codes of social and religious behavior derive from him, but also, even to the present day, he represents the model that the others strive to imitate, as witnessed by the increase in "Sanskritization" (i.e., the conforming to brahminical norms of respectability) among nonbrahmins, and especially among the harijan.²

c6.2

The reason for this preeminence is generally assumed to be the brahmin's priestly capacity. He has a monopoly of the performance of the Vedic ritual, the most hallowed part of brahminical tradition. However, this priestly capacity of the brahmin is open to serious qualification and his preeminence does not seem to be founded on priesthood, as I shall argue.³ But what then is the basis of the brahmin's preeminence?

c6.3

In a discussion of the place of the brahmin in Indian culture, it is natural to turn in the first place to the Vedic ritual texts. Not only is the Vedic ritual at the heart of brahminical tradition, but above all it would seem to me that the ritual texts reflect an evolution that has been decisive for the position of the brahmin and, generally, for the development of Hinduism.

2

c6.s1.1

Ostensibly the central theme of the solemn *śrauta* ritual is the periodical regeneration of the cosmos, the winning of life out of death.⁴ In the classical

c6.s1.2

This essay first appeared in slightly different form in *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens* 8 (1964): 1–31. Reprinted by permission.

c6.s1.3

system of the ritual, as presented in the brāhmaṇas and the sūtras, the pivot of the ritual is the *yajamāna*, the patron at whose expense and for whose sole benefit the ritual is performed. He is supposed symbolically to incorporate the universe—he is identified with the cosmic man, Prajāpati. The ritual culminates in his ritual rebirth, which signifies the regeneration of the cosmos.

c6.s1.4

For our discussion, two points are of particular interest. First, though the ritual is a regeneration of the universe, it is not a communal, but a strictly private celebration, centering on the single *yajamāna* who is the sole beneficiary.⁵ Second, the ritual is the domain of absolute purity; the brahmin ritual specialists are pure and the *yajamāna* has to undergo a purificatory ceremony, the *dīkṣā*, in order to be admitted to the ritual.

c6.s1.5

However, underneath the classical system, a different, older pattern can be discerned. Here in this older, preclassical pattern, purity and impurity are complementary to each other. The *yajamāna*, who has undergone the *dīkṣā*, is not pure, but on the contrary is charged with the evil of death to which he has to submit in order to be reborn. According to the texts of the Black Yajurveda, one should not eat his food, one should not put on his clothes, nor should one pronounce his name. The reason is the *dīkṣita*'s evil, the impurity of death.⁶ Being tainted by death, the *dīkṣita* has to divest himself of his impure self. In this way we understand that, for instance, the twelve-day ritual (*dvādaśāha*) is described as a gradual purification of the *yajamāna*.⁷ By means of the various offerings and the gifts (*dakṣiṇā*) which represent the parts of his body, he disposes of his impure self.⁸ Thus he is reborn pure, “out of the sacrifice.”

c6.s1.6

In this light, the relationship between patron and officiant is of a nature diametrically opposed to what the classical theory of the pure ritual wants it to be. The function of the brahmin officiant is to take over the death impurity of the patron by eating from the offerings and by accepting the *dakṣiṇās*. By gifts and food, evil and impurity are transferred and purity attained, especially if the donee is a brahmin.⁹ It is no matter for surprise, then, that the acceptance of *dakṣiṇās* by the brahmin is surrounded with meticulous care. The need for such care is, moreover, reinforced by the fact that the brahmin is not allowed to refuse the *dakṣiṇā*; indeed *Manu* 4, 249 deprecates a brahmin who refuses a gift.¹⁰

c6.s1.7

This relationship between patron and officiant comes out clearest in the case of the *brahman*-officiant. Though his role in the ritual is mostly that of a spectator, he is recognized as the most important of the officiants. His share of the *dakṣiṇās* is as great as those of the other officiants together.¹¹ In the classical system, his function is to redress the faults committed in the execution of the ritual. He is the *bhiṣaj*, the healer of the ritual, but this must originally have referred to the healing of death. Since the classical ritual does not admit of impurity but only of infractions against a correct execution of the ritual, the brahman's function was transformed into that of redressing ritual faults. In the preclassical system, then, his role was that of taking over death and impurity. The two poles of the ritual, death and rebirth, are resumed in the complementary pair patron-brahman. At the acme of the ritual, the moment of birth, when the dakṣiṇās are distributed, a reversal takes place: the dīkṣita patron sheds his death impurity and is reborn a pure brahman.¹² The brahman on the other hand takes over the burden of death. Whereas the pivot of the classical ritual is represented by the single yajamāna, the preclassical ritual is based on a complementary pair. This pair, through exchange and the reversal of roles, maintains the continuity of the cosmos.

c6.s1.8

The cooperation of the antithetical pair in guaranteeing the continuity of life seems to be even more explicit when we consider that their exchanges involve affinal relations. In general, the relations between patron and brahmin—or, in abstract terms, *kṣatra* and *brahman*—are represented as connubial. At the classical Soma ceremony, the yajamāna can marry off his daughters to the officiants. Finally, the officiating brahmin represents the brahman out of which the yajamāna is ritually reborn a brahmin. Seen against this background, the life-winning function of the exchanges stands out clearly. The evil (*pāpman*), which the dīkṣita transfers on his ritual birth to the brahmin, can thus produce rich returns. It is, so to say, transformed into *śrī*, good fortune.¹³

c6.s1.9

Actually the patron-brahmin pair, surviving in the classical ritual, stands for two opposed groups cooperating in the life-winning ritual. The classical system has limited the number of participants to seventeen: one yajamāna assisted by sixteen officiants. The Black Yajurveda, however, still knows of a group of dīkṣitas faced in the ritual by a group of non-dīkṣitas, namely, at the *ahīna* or Soma sacrifice lasting from two to twelve days. But in the classical system it is not allowed to officiate for a group of yajamānas. Thus the brahmin who is invited to officiate at a Soma sacrifice should ask whether it is an ahīna. If it is, he should reject the invitation.¹⁴ We may safely assume that the cooperation of two opposed groups, which is not mentioned in the White Yajurveda anymore, belongs to the preclassical system.

c6.s1.10

The cooperation between the two opposed parties seems to have been characterized by rivalry. Indeed, the classical ritual still contains, though under a stylized form, many contests, especially chariot races and verbal contests (e.g., in the *mahāvrata*, the *vājapeya*, the *rājasūya*, the *aśvamedha*).¹⁵ It is typical of the classical ritual that these contests are very much pushed into the background or transformed into liturgical operations in which there is no real contest any more. But the texts still do indicate that rivalry originally took up a far more important place in the ritual.¹⁶ Thus we read of competing Soma pressings, *saṃsava*.¹⁷ Of course in the classical system, the saṃsava is a ritual fault consisting in lack of spatial separation between two Soma sacrifices taking place at the same time, a fault that calls for expiation. But it is characteristic that the form this "expiation" assumes is that of a contest: one must overcome the rival ritual by a greater sacrifice than that of the adversary.¹⁸ That ritual competition was a normal phenomenon is indicated by the fact that the full- and new-moon sacrifices are characterized as *saṃṛtayajña*, "competing sacrifice."¹⁹ We are reminded here of the rivalry between devas and asuras, who in the brāhmaṇa texts are often described as competing in the ritual. Their (competitive) exchanges of food and gifts suggested by some passages seem to fit very well into their continuous rivalry.²⁰

c6.s1.11

Although in the classical system the rival is rigorously excluded from the ritual, we may assume that he was an essential participant in the preclassical ritual. His participation as the antagonist of the yajamāna still shines through in the identification of the sticks (*paridhi*) which are put on three sides of the sacrificial fire. The middle (eastern) one is identified with sacrifice (*yajña*), while the southern and the northern ones are identified with the yajamāna and the rival (*bhrātṛvya*) respectively: the yajamāna and the rival each on one side of and linked together by the sacrifice.²¹ In this way, it becomes understandable that we occasionally still find that the dakṣiṇā is to be given to the rival, recalling the exchanges of food and gifts between gods and asuras. Such is the case in the *sādyaskra* ritual.²²

c6.s1.12

Now in the sādyaskra, the original agonistic character of the ritual is still to some extent manifest. The war and racing chariot are still very much in evidence, and, at least according to one text,²³ a chariot race was part of the ritual. Particularly interesting is the legend which is meant to explain the sādyaskra: "The Ādityas competed with the Aṅgirases for the possession of the heavenly world; they considered: which of our two parties will officiate at the ritual of the other, that party will be left behind (on earth while the other wins heaven)." The Aṅgirases then invite the Ādityas to their ceremony, but the Ādityas find a way out by preparing a ceremony that can be performed on one day (the sādyaskra) and consequently can take place before the Aṅgirases' ceremony. Thus the Aṅgirases are forced to accept the invitation of the Ādityas, who in this way win the contest.²⁴ Less mythological, almost "historical," is a similar story of rivalry told in connection with a variant of the sādyaskra, the *parikrī*, where Keśin Dārbhya and Khaṇḍika are said to compete with each other for the kingship of the Pañcālas. Khaṇḍika hopes to win by announcing the sādyaskra to Keśin; but Keśin retorts by announcing to his opponent the parikrī, which gives him the upper hand over Khaṇḍika.²⁵

c6.s1.13

It seems possible, then, that originally brahmins and kṣatriyas were not closed, separate groups. It has already been mentioned that the yajamāna, to whatever varṇa he belongs, is ritually reborn a brahmin. The kṣatriya's transformation into a brahmin is made even more explicit in the rājasūya; when the king has been anointed and enthroned, he addresses each of the four leading brahmins with "brahman," whereupon each answers with "thou, O king, art brahman."²⁶ The reversal of roles is further underlined by the king's gift on this occasion of two golden plaques (*niṣka*), his royal paraphernalia which have been used at the unction, to the brahman.²⁷ The king even gives away what he has conquered at the symbolic, but originally real, chariot race or *razzia*. In the same way, the conquests made during the year-long roaming of the sacrificial horse are to be given up at the aśvamedha.²⁸

c6.s1.14

Indeed, we hear of kṣatriyas becoming brahmins, for example, the famous king Janaka of Videha. It is not without interest that Janaka becomes a brahmin on being successful in a verbal contest on the meaning of the agnihotra offerings.²⁹ On the other hand, brahmins do not seem to be excluded from becoming kings and warriors: for instance, the brahmin Paraśurāma, who exterminated the kṣatriyas.³⁰ It is further interesting that Paraśurāma after finishing his conquests performs a sacrifice, or even an aśvamedha, at which he hands over the conquered earth to the brahmin Kaśyapa, who eventually hands it over to kṣatriyas.³¹ If I am not mistaken, the ancient system of exchange and reversal of roles is still discernible here.

c6.s1.15

The above considerations seem to suggest that the brahmin officiants in the classical system of ritual, and especially the brahman officiant—to the extent that they eat from the offerings and accept the dakṣiṇās—have taken the place of the rivals in the preclassical system. An illustration of this development is provided by the rājasūya. After the central ceremonies connected with the unction and the communal Soma drinking (*daśapeya*), a particular offering (*iṣṭi*) is prescribed, the distinctive feature of which is the sending of messengers (*sātyadūtahavīṃṣi*). These messengers bring particular presents, which are connected with the king's unction, that is, with his ritual birth, to the rival kings (*pratirājan*). By their acceptance of the presents, the rival kings show their allegiance. Now these presents are at the same time prescribed as dakṣiṇās for the brahmins who officiate at the iṣṭi.³² This does not mean that the brahmins have brought the kṣatriyas under their sway or have "usurped" their position. We have seen that brahminhood was not originally represented by a closed group of priestly specialists.³³ The bearers of the brahman, on the contrary, were the antagonists in the preclassical ritual drama. In principle, they were the equals of the yajamāna (or group of yajamānas). Invited as guests,³⁴ they help to bring about the life-death reversal by eating the host's food and by accepting his gifts. The host is reborn a brahmin; the guest, being a brahmin at the outset, takes over death.

c6.s1.16

The classical system implies that it is each time the same yajamāna who spends his wealth on the brahmins, but the preclassical system called for reciprocity. In order not to remain permanently saddled with the inferiority implied in his accepting the opponent's food and presents, the donee has to reciprocate ("sich revanchieren"). On the other hand, the lavish munificence of the giver has created a vacuum, which must be filled again. Whereas the classical ritual is supposed to produce its results (i.e., broadly speaking, the furthering of life and prosperity) automatically without an intervening agency, the preclassical system based the life- and prosperity-furthering function on periodically alternating exchanges and reversals.

c6.s1.17

An illustration of this alternating pattern seems still to be contained in *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* 4. 25. This text declares that in the beginning Prajāpati undertook the dīkṣā and invited the seasons and the months to officiate for him in the twelve-day ritual. Having officiated for Prajāpati and having received his dakṣiṇās, the seasons and the months feel "heavy" (*gurava ivāmanyanta*). In their turn, they undertake the dīkṣā and have Prajāpati officiate for them. Thus "Prajāpati, (who is) the year, found support in the seasons and months; the seasons and months (in their turn) found support in Prajāpati, the year; they became firmly established in each other." We might say, in other words, alternately the one represents the brahman out of which the other is reborn.

c6.s1.18

The same idea seems to underly the prescript that "he who, having accepted many gifts, feels as if he had swallowed poison (*garagīr iva manyeta*) should perform the repeated stoma (*punaḥstoma*)."³⁵ That is, he should in his turn offer a feast. It would seem that this ancient idea is still preserved in the epic, where it is said that through victory over the rival party the "material sacrifice" (*dravyamayo yajñaḥ*) is obtained and that it has to be spent again in sumptuous ceremonies such as the aśvamedha; "this is the everlasting path of fortune" (*śāśvato 'yaṁ bhūtipathaḥ*).³⁶

c6.s1.19

In other words, the preclassical system of ritual was characterized by what Mauss called "prestations totales de type agonistique",³⁷ involving an ever-repeated cycle of exchanges.

5

c6.s2.1

Death must constantly be overcome in order to renew life. The preclassical dualistic system of ritual brought this about through the cooperation of the rival parties in endless rounds of "qui perd gagne." This meant that one was all the time doubly dependent on the other. One needed the other so as to be able to shed one's dead, impure self; but, on the other hand, to fill the vacuum thus created, one again depended on the other. *Pāpman*, "evil," had to be passed to the other so as to be reconverted into *śrī*, "good fortune"; but in order to receive it back, one again depended on the other.

c6.s2.2

It seems clear that the cooperation between the rival parties is as delicate as it is pivotal. In the texts we can still find the fear that the sacrifice that has been offered will not come back again. Thus *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* 6. 6. 7. 3 says that at the end of the Soma ceremony, in the afternoon, the sacrifice leaves the one who has offered it and goes away to the one who has not offered it; therefore special libations are prescribed to hold it. Thus we also read that "the food of him who has given all, has gone to the (other) people" and therefore he must go there to win it back again.³⁸ The well-known motif of the sacrifice going away from the devas to join the asuras and of the efforts of the devas to win it back seems to bear out the same idea.

c6.s2.3

Since it is in the last resort oneself that one offers—the offerings and dakṣiṇās, as has been mentioned, represent the yajamāna—it is easy to see that the procedure involved a heavy risk. In addition, the reciprocal obligation not only to give but also to accept the evil, the death of the others, must have added to the strain of the relations between the parties. The continuity of life depended on the others, but this dependence was permeated with the idea of death. It is perhaps against this background that we should see the concept of "recurrent death" (*punarmṛtyu*).³⁹

c6.s2.4

At any rate, it would seem that here lies the crucial point where the development of ritual thought started. The problem before the ancient ritualists was to break through the vicious circle of mutual dependence. They had to find a way permanently to overcome death and secure the continuity of life. The solution that presented itself to them was to short-circuit the bilateral pattern of exchange and reversal by cutting out the other, the rival party. The elimination of the rival brought the cosmic cycle of life and death in one hand; thus the single yajamāna was enabled to deal ritually with death without incurring the risk involved in the ambivalent cooperation with the others.

6

c6.s3.1

This solution seems to be the leading principle that shaped the classical ritual. It is graphically described in the story of Prajāpati's contest with and final victory over Death. The *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*⁴⁰ tells this story as an explanation of the classical form of the mahāvrata ceremony. In its classical form, the mahāvrata is a normalized Soma ceremony, but it has preserved a complex of markedly archaic rites: different kinds of contests (a chariot race among others), dancing, singing, drumming, lute playing, and copulation. The *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa* relates that Prajāpati and Death competed with each other through rival sacrifices. In this contest, Prajāpati had as his "weapons" (*yajñāyudhāni*) the liturgy of the classical, normalized Soma ritual (*tad yad yajñe stūyate, yac chasyate, yat pracaryate*). The arsenal of Death consisted in the archaic rites (*yad vīṇāyām gīyate, yan nṛtyate, yad vṛthācaryate*). A long time the outcome of the contest remains undecided, but finally Prajāpati overcomes his rival through the discovery of the symbolical and numerical equivalences (*saṃpad, saṃkhyāna*). This meant that Prajāpati, by means of the symbolical and numerical equivalences, brought the ritual "weapons" of Death under the same denominator as his own "weapons."

c6.s3.2

Indeed saṃpad and saṃkhyāna were the premier techniques of the ritualists in elaborating the classical code of ritual. It enabled them to reduce the inventory of the ritual to a restricted number of liturgical means—chiefly meter, melody, and *stoma*, or serial arrangement of verses into small units (*stotriyā*) for chanting—which, applied in countless variations and combinations, could be made to express any content. Thus we find, for instance, a great number of ceremonies which are only differentiated by their stoma pattern. Thus Prajāpati's victory over Death expresses the breakthrough of the classical ritual. The "weapons" of Death, assimilated to those of Prajāpati, have no meaning of their own anymore and can even be dispensed with completely. In the end, only the characteristic liturgical forms of the mahāvrata chant (*stotra*) and the corresponding recitation (*śastra*) remain as parts of a normalized Soma ceremony, the *sarvajit*.⁴¹

c6.s3.3

The most important point in the Prajāpati-Death contest, however, is that Prajāpati's victory means the elimination of Death as a participant in the ritual; or, rather, by means of the symbolical equivalences his power can be ritually made subservient. By the same token, the rival is excluded from the ritual. In the same way as Death, he can be dealt with ritually, without his active participation. The *Jaiminīya* significantly adds as the conclusion of the story: "Now there is no ritual competition (saṃsava); what was the second sacrifice (of Death), that waned; the sacrifice is only one; Prajāpati alone is the sacrifice."⁴² Prajāpati, the cosmic man and incorporation of the classical ritual doctrine, is the prototype of the single yajamāna, who performs without the intervention of a rival party and for his sole benefit the ritual of cosmic renewal.

c6.s3.4

The outcome does not depend anymore on the others, but everything depends on the correct execution of the automatically working ritual. This has led to an excessive development of ritual "science," but nevertheless it was a breakthrough in that it set the individual free from the oppressive bonds of reciprocity which tied him to the others, the rivals. This was achieved through the symbolical and numerical equivalences. Where there was opposition, there is now equivalence. Through the knowledge of the equivalences, the yajamāna not only becomes the cosmic man Prajāpati, but also, like Prajāpati, he assimilates Death. "Death becomes his self," and thus he conquers recurring death (*punarmṛtyu*).⁴³

c6.s3.5

The individualization of the ritual, which placed the single yajamāna in the center, stands out clearest in those cases where the texts by their own words indicate that originally the ceremony was performed by rival groups. Such is, for instance, the case of the "concord" sacrifice (*saṃjñāneṣṭi*).⁴⁴ This ritual was manifestly intended to be performed by rival groups in order to unite them under a common leader. "The gods, unable to agree among themselves on the leadership (*anyonyasya śraiṣṭhye 'tiṣṭhamānāḥ*), divided into four groups—Agni with the Vasus, Soma with the Rudras, Indra with the Maruts, Varuṇa with the Ādityas—Bṛhaspati made them perform the saṃjñāneṣṭi; they turned to Indra; they agreed on Indra as their leader." The classical ritual of course cannot fully admit such a situation. It therefore transformed the saṃjñāna ceremony into a standard type vegetal offering (*iṣṭi*) to be performed by a single yajamāna, who wishes that the others will agree on his leadership, but without their participation in the ceremony. Thus the *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā* continues: "On him who performs this iṣṭi, they agree as their leader." It is to be noted that whereas the explanatory story speaks of a plurality of rival gods performing the ceremony, the iṣṭi is to be performed by a single person.⁴⁵

c6.s3.6

Henceforth man depends only on his own (ritual) work, his own *karman*. He is born in the world which he has made himself, as *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* 6. 2. 2. 27 has it. The world is no longer recreated through the contest and the exchange between the rival parties: the single individual creates it by himself through his own works, good as well as bad. In this conception, it is no longer possible to pass off the evil work, death, to the others; he must digest it himself. In this the ritual helps him; it has reduced evil to the point where it can be dealt with ritually (of course always on condition that he knows the proper equivalences). On the other hand, the new doctrine means also that there is no more danger that the good work—the correctly executed sacrifice—will not return to the initiator from the opposite side. No more does the sacrifice go away at the end of the ceremony; it stays with the yajamāna. Or in the words of *Śatapatha* 11. 2. 2. 5: "Becoming himself the sacrifice, the sacrificer frees himself from death; . . . what he offers becomes his self in the hereafter; when he goes away from this world it calls after him, saying: Come, here I am, your own self".⁴⁶

c6.s3.7

Instead of the transversal axis of the reciprocal relations with the others, everything is now concentrated on the vertical axis of the individual life, or lives, of the single yajamāna. It is perhaps in this light that we can understand the novelty and the mystery of the Upaniṣadic karma doctrine which Yājñavalkya could not explain to Ārtabhāga in front of the other participants in the verbal contest in King Janaka's assembly. "Good (*puṇya*) one becomes by good work, evil (*pāpa*) by evil work''.⁴⁷ One is tempted to think that Yājñavalkya and Ārtabhāga had to go outside to talk about this doctrine because it was the negation of the contest ideology.

c6.s3.8

Many factors contributed to the rise and elaboration of the karma doctrine, but it would seem to me that the pivotal point is the emphasis on the individual.⁴⁸ The life-death alternation which was realized through the agonistic cooperation with the others must now be worked out by the single individual in his successive lives. But this train of thought cannot stop here; individualization implies that the individual had to be all lest he be nothing. Given autonomy, the individual is able—as has already been noted in the previous section—to overcome the life-death alternation. Resuming the opposite poles in himself, he can attain immortality.

c6.s3.9

The individualization which transformed the ritual must also have meant a transformation in the field of social relations—or at least in the ideas governing their representation. In principle, the reciprocal relations between equal parties have been cut; there can be no more exchange and reversal of roles. Consequently the groups stay fixed in their roles. Relations between the groups are no longer defined in terms of homogeneous prestations but become predominatly governed by functional specialization. The hierarchy, which originally was, in principle, rearticulated at the periodic agonistic ceremonies, now becomes permanently settled. Evil, impurity, does not circulate anymore between the parties but is fixed at the lower levels of the hierarchy. Disposal of impurity becomes a hereditary specialty. In other words, we touch here the principle of caste ideology.

c6.s3.10

Thus the brahmin is no longer the rival on whom death and impurity are devolved and who is entitled to a "revanche.'' In the classical ritual, we see him as a member of the brahmin caste whose functional speciality is the liturgy. Death and impurity having been "assimilated away,'' the ritual has become the domain of absolute purity. The brahmin's world is a pure world and consequently his place in the hierarchy is the highest.

c6.s3.11

On the face of it, it would seem that his purity and his liturgical monopoly eminently qualify the brahmin for priesthood. But here we come up against a difficulty. Purity was attained at the expense of the complementary relations with the others. In order to safeguard his purity, the brahmin had to keep aloof from the others and especially from their food and gifts; he is not allowed to take part in the reciprocal prestations implied by gifts. But to exercise his craft, he needed a patron. On the other hand the yajamāna, more than ever, was in need of the liturgical specialists, not only to eat his food and to accept his gifts, but also because of the hypertrophical development of ritual science.

c6.s3.12

The result was an all but monstrous growth of the mutual dependence of yajamāna and officiant. In the same way that death and impurity had been "assimilated away," yajamāna and officiant were amalgamated into one single unit. The ritualists who elaborated the classical system seem to have been keenly aware of the difficulty involved in the relations between yajamāna and officiants. Thus, for instance, *Śatapatha* 9. 5. 2. 12ff. discusses the question of whether one is allowed to perform the mahāvrata liturgy for somebody else, which would mean giving one's "divine, immortal self" (*daivo 'mṛta ātmā*) to somebody else. The ritualist Śāṇḍilya then quotes in conclusion the opinion that one can perform the mahāvrata liturgy for somebody else because yajamāna and officiant form a single unit: "The yajamāna is the trunk of the sacrifice, the officiants the limbs" (*ātmā vai yajñasya yajamāno, 'ṅgāny ṛtvijaḥ*). There is no evil passed on to the other party; both obtain the same benefit.⁴⁹ Relations on the basis of complementary opposition being ruled out, relations can only be realized in terms of fusion into a single unit.

c6.s3.13

Genetically the basis of the rigid unity of yajamāna and officiants may be found in the alliance ritual, which, we may assume, has also been part of the preclassical ritual and which is still reflected in the *tānūnaptra* rite of the classical, normalized Soma ritual. In the preclassical system, the united group derived its meaning from its opposition to another group. The mythological explanation of the samjñāneṣṭi, mentioned above, makes it clear that the bond between the devas was established because of their rivalry with the asuras.⁵⁰ The antithetical relations have, however, been broken up in the classical system, thus depriving the sacrificer-officiant bond of its meaning. The dakṣiṇās no longer circulate but stay in the same place. The brahmin has to keep the dakṣiṇās and is not allowed to pass them on or to return the compliment,⁵¹ while the depleted stocks of the yajamāna are supposed to be replenished through the automatism of the ritual.⁵²

c6.s3.14

The rejection of the dualist system of exchange and reversal is manifest in the brahminical theory of the gift. It revolutionized the relationship between the brahmin and the non-brahmin world.

c6.s3.15

The obligation to give and the obligation to accept presents are, if anything, even more strongly emphasized; but it is significant that the obligation to return the compliment by giving counterpresents is conspicuously absent. In his "Essai sur le don," Mauss noted this absence with some astonishment: "Il faut convenir, que sur le sujet principal de notre démonstration, l'obligation de rendre, nous avons trouvé peu de faits dans le droit hindou . . . Même le plus clair consiste dans la règle qui l'interdit.''⁵³ To this effect, he quotes the interesting case of the *śrāddha* ceremony, the banquet in honor of the ancestors, which, as he observes, originally must have been an occasion to invite each other and to return invitations received formerly. This idea still seems in effect when reference is made to many guests entertained at a śrāddha.⁵⁴ It is interesting to note that the classical doctrine allows the invitation of the affinal relations.⁵⁵ But at the ideal śrāddha there should not be a large company,⁵⁶ and it is especially enjoined that the śrāddha as well as other ceremonies should not aim at establishing reciprocal relations.⁵⁷ In this connection, it is said that the food and gifts which people offer each other mutually (*saṃbhojanī*) are demoniacal (*piśācadakṣiṇā*).⁵⁸

c6.s3.16

Actually, brahminical theory does not and cannot give scope to the gift to the full extent of its meaning.⁵⁹ Though it is more than ever meritorious to give, the brahmin has to feel a strong aversion against accepting, as indeed he clearly does. He does not accept the dakṣiṇās in a direct way but by "turning away" from them⁶⁰ and assigning them to various deities. Further, there are manifold restrictions as to the people from whom, the things which, and the circumstances under which he should not accept. This aversion is not unknown to ethnologists; Mauss refers to analogous Polynesian, Melanesian, and Amerindian customs. But nowhere does it seem so strong as in the Indian case. As Mauss appositely observes: "C'est que le lien que le don établit entre le donateur et le donataire est trop fort pour les deux.''⁶¹ We have seen why this is so in the brahmin's case. Since "revanche" is ruled out, the danger in accepting presents is stronger. The brahmin has to be constantly on his guard against those patrons "whose food is not to be eaten," "from whom one should not accept presents" (*anāśyānna*, *apratigṛhya*). The highest brahmin is a *śrotriya*, one learned in the Veda (*śruti*), who does not accept gifts.⁶²

c6.s3.17

It is easy to see that the well-known relationship of the brahmin "chaplain," the *purohita*, and his royal patron is extremely dangerous to the brahmin's purity, and to his hierarchical position. This is clearly shown by the story of the purohita Vṛśa Jāna and his patron king, Tryaruṇa.⁶³ Once when the king was driving his chariot, he killed by accident a brahmin boy. His purohita Vṛśa has to shoulder the guilt of killing the brahmin boy: "Under thy chaplainship has such an (untoward) thing happened to me," as the *Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa* has the king say to his purohita. Of course, the classical ritual knows how to deal with death. By means of the *vārśa* melody, Vṛśa is able to restore the boy to life. But the story makes clear that the purohita's function is to deal with evil, which would otherwise befall his patron, in the same way as the brahmin, whose original function is not to redress the ritual fault, but "to heal the sacrifice," i.e., to take over the burden of death.

c6.s3.18

Thus we can understand that "the food of the king takes away the brahmin's lustre (*tejas*),'' while the same goes for the royal gifts.⁶⁴ Service with a king is even ruled out for the proper brahmin. For the learned brahmin, the king is as great an abomination as ten brothels or even as the keeper of ten thousand slaughter houses.⁶⁵ It is not surprising, then, that the purohita's position is highly ambiguous. He precedes the king but the brahminical texts often evince contempt for him.⁶⁶ It is interesting that the epic, dealing with various types of brahmins according to their occupations, does not consider the sacrificial officiant (*ṛtvij*) and the purohita real brahmins (*vikarmastha*); they are equal to kṣatriyas (*kṣatrasama*).⁶⁷ Also Manu 12. 46 brackets the purohita together with the king and the kṣatriya and with those who engage in verbal contests (*vādayuddhāpradhānāḥ*).⁶⁸ That is, the purohita cannot be a proper brahmin because he is stuck in the sphere of antithetical relations where he has to exchange his purity for the impurity of his patron.

c6.s3.19

In fact the brahmin when serving a patron must either relapse into the ancient system of exchange and reversal or become one with his patron. The latter solution, however, tends to render his relations with a patron outside the brahmin caste all but impossible. Such relations of maximal closeness are only viable within his own caste, and even then he has to be careful: he should only eat at the sacrificial ceremony of a yajamāna who is a śrotriya.⁶⁹ Conversely, the yajamāna has to be equally careful as to whom he invites.⁷⁰ Insofar as the śrauta ceremonies are still performed at the present day, it is only among brahmins, almost as a secret ritual, and non-brahmins are rigorously kept at a distance.

c6.s3.20

It stands to reason that the highest place in the hierarchy of sacrifices is taken up by the sacrifice ``without dakṣiṇā,'' according to *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa* 1. 5. 7. Such sacrifices are the *sattras* of the classical ritual. In the satrra only brahmins participate. They unite their sacrificial fires and thus are actually assimilated with each other and are fused into one single unit. Each of them is at the same time yajamāna and officiant, and consequently, dakṣiṇās are neither given nor received. It is clear, however, that in this way the brahmin and his ritual were limited to the point where they shut themselves out from the wider community. Priestly functions are more often than not fulfilled by non-brahmin castes, for instance, by the potter, or castes have their own ritual functionaries. The *Arthaśāstra* says that the brahmin need not participate in village festivals. He tends to be a distant onlooker.⁷¹

c6.s3.21

But apart from the antithetical relations which characterized the preclassical ritual and the assimilating relations of the classical system, the individualization of ritual thinking led up to a third possibility.

10

c6.s4.1

The development of brahminical theory, set off by the individualization of the ritual, did not stop at the point where the host-guest, protagonist-antagonist complementarity was fused into the single unit of yajamāna and officiants. It had to advance to its logical conclusion, that is, the interiorization of the ritual, which makes the officiants' services superfluous.⁷² In fact, the classical doctrine of ritual has already concentrated the ritual in the person of the single yajamāna. His prototype is the cosmic man, Prajāpati, who is at the same time the primordial sacrificer, victim, and officiant. Thus the classical doctrine implies—as we have already seen—that the yajamāna, through the knowledge of the equivalences, becomes the integral cosmos, realizing in himself, and thereby mastering, the cosmic alternation of life and death.

c6.s4.2

The interiorization of the ritual is made fully explicit in *Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka-Upaniṣad* 1. 4. 17 in the description of the completeness of the self (*ātman*), which is at the same time the completeness, the self-sufficiency, of the one who "knows thus": "(Thus is) his completeness (*kṛtsnatā*): mind (*manas*) is his self; voice his wife; breath (*prāṇa*) his offspring; the eye his human property because through the eye he becomes aware of it; the ear his divine (property) because he hears it with the ear; the self is his act, because he acts with the self. This is the fivefold sacrifice; fivefold is the victim, fivefold is man, fivefold is all this. All this he obtains, who knows thus." Thus one who "knows" the equivalences based on the number five resumes in himself the universe and performs in himself and by himself the sacrifice without any outside intervention.

c6.s4.3

It would seem to me that here we touch the principle of world renunciation, the emergence of which has been of crucial importance in the development of Indian religious thinking.⁷³ The renouncer can turn his back on the world because he is emancipated from the relations which govern it. He is a world unto himself, or rather, he has resumed the oppositions of the world in himself; there is no duality for him anymore.⁷⁴ "He sees himself (or, the self) in all creatures and all creatures in himself (or, in the self)."⁷⁵ He has resumed the sacrificial fires in himself,⁷⁶ and so he is able to perform the ritual in himself and by himself. Thus it is said of the renouncer: "After the *ādhāna*, the solemn installation of the (interior) fires, the five (sacrificial) fires are contained in the sacrificer: his prāṇa is the gārhapatya fire, his apāna the southern fire, his vyāna the āhavanīya, his udāna and samāna the sabhya and āvasathya fires; he offers only in the self." Our text calls this the *ātmayajña*,⁷⁷ the sacrifice in the self, an internal, mental sacrifice (*mānasa yajña*), which according to *Manu* 2. 85 is a thousand times more efficacious than the normal ritual.

11

c6.s5.1

It is often thought that the institution of renunciation emerged as a protest against brahminical orthodoxy or that it originated in non-brahminical or even non-Aryan circles.⁷⁸ The theory of the four āśramas, or stages of life, would then have been an attempt at legitimizing the renunciatory modes of life and drawing them within the orbit of brahminical orthodoxy. There is of course full scope for recognizing the influence of extraneous beliefs and practices, for instance, in the matter of various forms of ascetism. But the important point is that these influences do not seem to have made a decisive irruption in the development of religious thought. They seem rather to have fitted themselves into the orthogenetic, internal development of Vedic thought. Or one might say that these extraneous beliefs and practices were not in principle dissimilar from those that obtained among the adherents of the preclassical ritual.

c6.s5.2

The ritual is usually thought of as belonging to the sphere of the householder, but it is possible to find traces of the other modes of life in the classical theory as well. The four āśramas divide themselves neatly in two parts: life in the world as a householder (*gṛhastha*) and life outside the world, either as a Vedic student (*brahmacārin*), as a forest dweller (*vānaprastha*), or as a roaming mendicant (*pravrājaka*, *saṃnyāsin*). The solidarity of the various modes of life outside the world seems to be borne out by the possibility of passing immediately from the brahmacārin's to the other modes of life outside the world without living first as a householder. These modes of life outside the world correspond to the stages through which the sacrificer has to pass. The brahmacārin corresponds to the dīkṣita; not only are their observances and dress similar, but the connection between brahmacārin and vrātya and between vrātya and dīkṣita suggests that they were originally variants of the same basic type.⁷⁹

c6.s5.3

As to the modes of the life in the forest and the life of the mendicant, the ritual texts contain some interesting information. At the *abhijit* and the *viśvajit* sacrifices, the sacrifier spends all his possessions in dakṣiṇās or he gives a thousand cows, which is tantamount to giving all, as *Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa* 25. 14 declares. The number thousand being fairly ubiquitous as the number of dakṣiṇās to be given at various types of sacrifices, we may assume that the idea of giving one's all, either symbolically or in reality, in dakṣiṇās, underlies much of the śrauta ritual. Having given away his possessions, the sacrificer then retires with his wife, in a kind of renewed dīkṣā, to the forest. According to the prescription in the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa*, this period lasts twelve days.⁸⁰ During three days, he and his wife live on roots and fruits they collect in the forest; then they stay for three days in a tribal (*niṣāda*) settlement; next they resort for three days to alien people (*jana*), explained as either a vaiśya or a rival (*bhrātṛvya*);⁸¹ and the last three days they stay with their own relatives (*sajana*), explained as a kṣatriya. In this way, the sacrificer obtains the various types of food associated with his hosts and in the end becomes (re)established in śrī, good fortune.

c6.s5.4

In these rules we can recognize a perhaps not too distant reflection of the preclassical alternating pattern: the sacrificer offers the sacrificial banquet and presents to the others; then he regains what he has spent by resorting to the forest and going as a guest to other people to be entertained in his turn. Having thus recouped strength, he finally returns home, possibly to start on a new cycle. A similar alternation seems to have been the basis of the vrātya ritual, which even in its normalized classical form shows a markedly agonistic character. Perhaps we can even recognize this pattern in the epics, in the vicissitudes of the Pāṇḍavas and of Rāma. The fortunes of the Pāṇḍavas especially alternate between royal court and forest, and the joints of the cycle, the points where the reversals take place, are marked by large-scale contests. It would seem to me that here perhaps lies also the origin of the well-known figure of the exiled (*aparuddha*) king, who turns up in the ritual texts with disconcerting frequency.⁸² In this connection, it is interesting that it is said that one should renounce the world in times of distress, when overcome by old age or when vanquished by the enemy.⁸³

c6.s5.5

In the course of development, the two poles of life in the world and life in the forest have been dissociated. This dissociation is part of the general evolution of the ritual outlined above. The ancient cycle of exchange and reversal has been broken up, the participating parties have been separated, and the sacrificer has been left alone on the place of sacrifice. By the same token, the cycle of alternating sacrifices to which the parties invited each other has been broken. The sacrifice no longer derives its value from its place in a cyclical concatenation, but each sacrifice has a value of its own. Sacrifices have even become independent of the time cycle, having lost in many cases the periodicity of performance and the connection with a particular season.

c6.s5.6

In the same way, the cycle of the modes of life alternating between the community and the forest—which was no other than the cycle of the reciprocal prestations—has been cut in two. Consequently, the renouncer cannot return anymore to his previous state as the *viśvajit* sacrificer did. Where there was cyclical alternation, brahminical theory has substituted a rectilineal succession. The transition can be illustrated by what the ritual texts teach about a sacrifice similar to the *viśvajit* and abhijit, the *sarvamedha*. At this ceremony, the sacrificer should give in dakṣiṇās all he has conquered, and having resumed the fires in himself, he should betake himself to the forest.⁸⁴ After the sarvamedha, however, the sacrificer does not return anymore.

12

c6.s6.1

The point I want to stress is that the institution of renunciation is already implied in classical ritual thinking. The difference between classical ritualism and renunciation seems to be a matter rather of degree than of principle. The principle is the individualization of the ritual, which could not but lead to its interiorization. Renunciation is therefore not necessarily anti-brahminical. Moreover, it should also be taken into consideration that interiorization meant the real fusion into one person of patron and officiant. Consequently, it not only emancipated the patron from the bond with the officiants, it also set the brahmin free.

c6.s6.2

Thus there seems to be a close relationship between ritualistic and renunciatory thought and practice. Mention has already been made of the prāṇāgnihotra and the mental sacrifice; we may also think, for instance, of the meditation on ātman, which is spoken of in terms of the agnicayana ritual, or the yogic breath exercises, which are put on a par with the pravargya ceremony,⁸⁵ while *Manu* recommends that the parivrājaka constantly recite sacrificial texts.⁸⁶ The question that occupies religious thought does not appear to concern the affirmation or rejection of sacrifice, but rather what is the true sacrifice, the latter being, of course, the interiorized sacrifice. Nor does the question turn on brahmin superiority or its rejection, but on the point of who is the true brahmin. On these points, both orthodox and heterodox thinkers seem to agree to a great extent.

c6.s6.3

Thus, for instance, the *Uttarajjhāyā* of the Jaina Canon contains two stories where a Jaina monk remonstrates with a group of brahmins engaged in a sacrifice on the wrongfulness of their behavior.⁸⁷ The interesting point is that the monk does not condemn the institution of sacrifice as such; on the contrary, he exhorts the brahmins to perform the true sacrifice—that is, the renunciatory way of life of the monk—and he declares that the true brahmin is the monk. In the same way the Buddhist *Kūṭadanta Sutta* (*Dīgha Nikāya* 5) gives a hierarchy of sacrifices, the highest sacrifices being the way of life of the monk and final emancipation.

c6.s6.4

One might be inclined to view this and similar instances where renunciation is spoken of in terms of sacrifice as a merely propagandistic device. But this seems hardly tenable when we consider that similar ideas obtain on the side of brahminical orthodoxy. Here too, the real brahmin is not the officiating priest or purohita, but the brahmin who keeps aloof from occupations that would enclose him in the web of relations and tie him to the others. The true brahmin is the renouncer or the individualized sacrificer.

c6.s6.5

This is borne out by the passage quoted above, where the ṛtvij and the purohita are said to be equal to kṣatriyas (*Mbh 12. 76*). Here the real brahmin appears under two forms: *brahmasama* and *devasama*. The brahmasama brahmin possesses knowledge—knowledge to be taken in the Upaniṣadic sense, knowledge of the equivalences. He has the proper characteristics—i.e., according to Nīlakaṇṭha, serenity, restraint, ascesis, purity and the like—and he looks impartially on all (*vidyālakṣaṇasampannāḥ sarvatra samadarśinaḥ*). The devasama brahmin is equipped with knowledge of the Vedic texts and is engaged in his own works—that is, apparently, the performance of Vedic ritual on his own, since the ṛtvij is not included in this category. The brahmasama brahmin represents the *jñānamārga*, "the path of knowledge," the devasama brahmin the *karmamārga*, "the path of works," but both live in the individualized sphere characterized by renunciatory values.⁸⁸

c6.s6.6

The ideal brahmin should not follow, for the sake of subsistence, "the way of the world" (*lokavṛtta*) as *Manu* 4. 11 enjoins. In fact, the ideal brahmin is the renouncer. Thus *Manu* 4. 7 gives a hierarchy of brahmins according to the stores of grain they possess, the smaller the store the higher the brahmin; the highest brahmin has no provisions even for the next day. Having no provisions is exactly the rule presribed for the renouncer, as Gautama's *Dharmasūtra* 3.11 has it. In general, when we look for the characteristics of the ideal brahmin, we notice throughout the emphasis on renunciatory attitudes: He speaks truth, does not injure life, controls his senses, restrains passion and anger; for him the world is equal to his self, he studies and teaches, sacrifices and officiates, he gives (but apparently does not receive);⁸⁹ he is a brahmacārin,⁹⁰ he guards the four gates of his body, he has no upper-garment, does not sleep on a couch, he is equally pleased in all the opposites and does not need the others; he knows the course of all creatures, he does not cause danger to the creatures nor do they cause danger to him, he is the self of all creatures.⁹¹

First 62 of 73 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)