The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s3.12

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.