Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s6: 12

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c6.s6

Language
English

12

c6.s6.1

The point I want to stress is that the institution of renunciation is already implied in classical ritual thinking. The difference between classical ritualism and renunciation seems to be a matter rather of degree than of principle. The principle is the individualization of the ritual, which could not but lead to its interiorization. Renunciation is therefore not necessarily anti-brahminical. Moreover, it should also be taken into consideration that interiorization meant the real fusion into one person of patron and officiant. Consequently, it not only emancipated the patron from the bond with the officiants, it also set the brahmin free.

c6.s6.2

Thus there seems to be a close relationship between ritualistic and renunciatory thought and practice. Mention has already been made of the prāṇāgnihotra and the mental sacrifice; we may also think, for instance, of the meditation on ātman, which is spoken of in terms of the agnicayana ritual, or the yogic breath exercises, which are put on a par with the pravargya ceremony,⁸⁵ while *Manu* recommends that the parivrājaka constantly recite sacrificial texts.⁸⁶ The question that occupies religious thought does not appear to concern the affirmation or rejection of sacrifice, but rather what is the true sacrifice, the latter being, of course, the interiorized sacrifice. Nor does the question turn on brahmin superiority or its rejection, but on the point of who is the true brahmin. On these points, both orthodox and heterodox thinkers seem to agree to a great extent.

c6.s6.3

Thus, for instance, the *Uttarajjhāyā* of the Jaina Canon contains two stories where a Jaina monk remonstrates with a group of brahmins engaged in a sacrifice on the wrongfulness of their behavior.⁸⁷ The interesting point is that the monk does not condemn the institution of sacrifice as such; on the contrary, he exhorts the brahmins to perform the true sacrifice—that is, the renunciatory way of life of the monk—and he declares that the true brahmin is the monk. In the same way the Buddhist *Kūṭadanta Sutta* (*Dīgha Nikāya* 5) gives a hierarchy of sacrifices, the highest sacrifices being the way of life of the monk and final emancipation.

c6.s6.4

One might be inclined to view this and similar instances where renunciation is spoken of in terms of sacrifice as a merely propagandistic device. But this seems hardly tenable when we consider that similar ideas obtain on the side of brahminical orthodoxy. Here too, the real brahmin is not the officiating priest or purohita, but the brahmin who keeps aloof from occupations that would enclose him in the web of relations and tie him to the others. The true brahmin is the renouncer or the individualized sacrificer.

c6.s6.5

This is borne out by the passage quoted above, where the ṛtvij and the purohita are said to be equal to kṣatriyas (*Mbh 12. 76*). Here the real brahmin appears under two forms: *brahmasama* and *devasama*. The brahmasama brahmin possesses knowledge—knowledge to be taken in the Upaniṣadic sense, knowledge of the equivalences. He has the proper characteristics—i.e., according to Nīlakaṇṭha, serenity, restraint, ascesis, purity and the like—and he looks impartially on all (*vidyālakṣaṇasampannāḥ sarvatra samadarśinaḥ*). The devasama brahmin is equipped with knowledge of the Vedic texts and is engaged in his own works—that is, apparently, the performance of Vedic ritual on his own, since the ṛtvij is not included in this category. The brahmasama brahmin represents the *jñānamārga*, "the path of knowledge," the devasama brahmin the *karmamārga*, "the path of works," but both live in the individualized sphere characterized by renunciatory values.⁸⁸

c6.s6.6

The ideal brahmin should not follow, for the sake of subsistence, "the way of the world" (*lokavṛtta*) as *Manu* 4. 11 enjoins. In fact, the ideal brahmin is the renouncer. Thus *Manu* 4. 7 gives a hierarchy of brahmins according to the stores of grain they possess, the smaller the store the higher the brahmin; the highest brahmin has no provisions even for the next day. Having no provisions is exactly the rule presribed for the renouncer, as Gautama's *Dharmasūtra* 3.11 has it. In general, when we look for the characteristics of the ideal brahmin, we notice throughout the emphasis on renunciatory attitudes: He speaks truth, does not injure life, controls his senses, restrains passion and anger; for him the world is equal to his self, he studies and teaches, sacrifices and officiates, he gives (but apparently does not receive);⁸⁹ he is a brahmacārin,⁹⁰ he guards the four gates of his body, he has no upper-garment, does not sleep on a couch, he is equally pleased in all the opposites and does not need the others; he knows the course of all creatures, he does not cause danger to the creatures nor do they cause danger to him, he is the self of all creatures.⁹¹

c6.s6.7

It would seem to me that it is the renunciatory ideology that opens a way for the brahmin to enter into relation with the world without losing his purity. Having emancipated himself from the world, the renouncer can from his sphere of independence reenter into relation with the world, where he now enjoys unequalled prestige. Indeed, the renouncer can, and to the present day often does, exert considerable influence on the sphere of worldly life. The secret of his ascendency over life-in-the-world seems to lie in his impartiality. He is no longer a party to the affairs of the world because he is independent from it. "He who sees the self through the self in all beings, becomes equal-minded toward all (*sarvasamatām etya*) and attains the highest state",⁹² "he sees the same in all" (*sarvatra samadarśana*).⁹³ As we have seen, he has resumed the opposites in himself and has identified himself with the cosmos. He is by himself the whole world, or, as the epic has it: "He who by himself fills as it were the empty space, through whom the void is crowded with people, the gods consider a brahmin."⁹⁴ Thus, on reentering into relations with the world, he is safeguarded, in theory at least, against its corrupting impact. He is then in the world but not of it—on condition of maintaining under all circumstances his total disinterestedness.

c6.s6.8

In the same way, the brahmin—that is, of course, the ideal brahmin—though rigidly separate from the world, can entertain relations with it. It is significant that at the śrāddha one should neither invite a friend nor an enemy—apparently a reference to the agonistic pattern of ritual—but an impartial (*madhyastha*) brahmin.⁹⁵ It is also recommended that he should be neither a teacher nor an officiating priest,⁹⁶ as is in keeping with the individualization of the ritual in general. Such a brahmin, who remains outside and above the oppositional relations, is not touched by impurity. He can accept food and gifts without accepting at the same time the impurity, as the purohita or the ṛtvij has to do. Of particular importance here is the motif of “knowledge.” The brahmin invited to the śrāddha must be entirely devoted to it.⁹⁷ In general, the importance of knowledge in accepting gifts is stressed. It would seem to me that this knowledge refers to the knowledge of the equivalences through which the brahmin realizes his cosmic identification. By virtue of this knowledge, “evil does not overcome him, he overcomes all evil; evil does not burn him, he burns all evil,” as the *Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka* says of the true brahmin.⁹⁸ *Manu* 3. 187 speaks of the knowledge of the rules for accepting gifts, but even so it is not to be lost sight of that these rules also contain a rite through which the donee identifies himself with the cosmic man Prajāpati.⁹⁹

c6.s6.9

Thus being self-contained and independent, the true brahmin does not take part in the pure-impure complementarity and exchange. His purity is not dependent on his partners, it is absolute. On this basis he can dispense religious merit by accepting food and presents without staking his purity. But the condition is that he holds on to his independence and does not engage himself in the world. As a specialist of religious merit, he can be called a priest. But in this sense, he can only be a priest by virtue of renunciation. Thus the preeminence of the brahmin is not based on his priesthood, but on his being the exponent of the values of renunciation.¹⁰⁰

c6.s6.10

The position of the brahmin is, therefore, as precarious as it is eminent. His monopoly of Vedic knowledge should enable him to hold this position without falling for the temptation either of worldly involvement or of total abandonment. But in the end, it is all by himself that he must bridge the gap that separates renunciation from the householder's world. The brahmin, then, is the exemplar of the irresolvable tension that is at the heart of Indian civilization.

Linked texts (4)