Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s3: 6

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s3

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (8)