The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s3.16

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