The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s1.7

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.