The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s1: 2

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s1

Language: English

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.

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.

Linked texts (2)

Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Aitareyabrāhmaṇa — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit