The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c9.14

c9.14

At this point the development bifurcates. On one hand, the brahmodya discussion of the ritual, which is now often called *mīmāṃsā*, methodical reflection,¹⁶ serves to settle a point of ritual procedure. We are here on the threshold of classical Mīmāṃsā. On the other hand, this same development has broken up the antithetical relations—indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, the impulse for the elaboration of the classical ritual was provided precisely by the aspiration to transcend these antithetical relations.¹⁷ Taking away the antithetical relation meant that the poles of the relation came apart; they must either remain apart or they must be completely identified with each other. In this way, the partners who acted out their antithetical relation are completely separated as single sacrificers, each alone being identified with the cosmos, or they are amalgamated into a single body (of sacrificer and officiants) performing the ritual in unison. The latter is the case of the *sattra*, the sacrificial "session" where the participants are at the same time sacrificer and officiant. In the same way, the antithetical enigma is resolved by identification. Thus the brahmodya disputations on the ritual in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* lead straight on, as Renou has shown, to the Upaniṣads and from there to Vedānta.¹⁸