Yajna or Ritual Vedic tradition
Yajña is the central notion of vedic religion (1500–500 BCE). Vedic religion is polytheistic, and the sacrifice, devoid of images and temples, is performed at temporary ritual enclosures. The fact that there is a voluminous corpus of literature available, the so-called vedic canon (see below), is of great advantage to researchers: from these texts the ancient rituals can be reconstructed in detail, and the texts also include interpretations of ritual elements and mystical speculation about them.
The beginnings of vedic ritual can be traced back to Indo-Iranian times. An elaborate ritual system can be assumed even for the early vedic period, which becomes clear from the most ancient vedic text, the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā (c. 1200 BCE). A highly complex system developed from this starting point exists in the middle and late vedic period, which is documented in the texts of the Yajurveda, the Brāhmaṇas, and finally the ritual Sūtras, which emerged in the following centuries. The present article deals with the Śrauta ritual system, the rituals “belonging to the sacred revelation,” with which Yajurveda, Brāhmaṇas, and Śrautasūtras are concerned. In postvedic times, the texts of the vedic canon were categorized as Śruti (sacred revelation) – regarded as revealed literature beheld by seers – and derived from this is the adjective Śrauta “belonging to the sacred revelation.” Not a part of Śruti is the system of domestic rituals, mainly life-cycle rituals and cyclical sacrifices (e.g. new- and full-moon sacrifices) that are dealt with in separate texts, the Gṛhyasūtras. Especially the enactment of the extremely elaborate Śrauta rituals was limited to the elite of vedic society. They were promoted by a patron (yajamāna “the one who sacrifices for himself”). The performance of the ritual acts, which were accompanied by recitations and chants, was in the hands of religious specialists.
The vedic term for the rituals is yajña, which has the meaning of “veneration” in the oldest linguistic strata. It is a primary nominal derivation of the Sanskrit root yaj- “to venerate,” “to venerate [through sacrifices],” and also “perform a ritual.” In later vedic texts, yajña is generally understood as “sacrifice.” This meaning suggests, for instance, the explanation of yajña that is given in the Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra 1.2.2: “[yajña consists of sacrificial] substance, deity, and relinquishing.” Crucial and possibly distinctive elements of yajña are thus the substance that is offered, the deity who receives it, and the ritual relinquishment of this substance (tyāga). Tyāga, which also means “departing, giving up, renunciation,” also designates a formula that is recited by the ritual patron while the priest sacrifices the substance into the fire. The formula names the deity who receives the oblation, for example, “This is for Agni, not for me.” In the classical philosophy of Mimāṃsā, the interpretation of tyāga is discussed probably under the influence of its interpretation in the Bhagavadgītā : is it simply the formal sacrifice, the giving away of the concrete sacrificial substance, or does it mean the renunciation of the “fruit of the sacrifice” by the ritual patron, the desired result of the ritual?
The ancient Indian explanation of yajña coincides with the classical explanation of “sacrifice” in comparative religious studies (going back to Mauss & Hubert, 1899), in which the element of relinquishment and/or destruction of the sacrificial substance is of utmost importance. But the Śrauta yajñas represent complex rituals that include a multitude of processes and acts that have no connection with “sacrifice.” So the term “ritual” would be more appropriate than “sacrifice.” But vedic ritual specialists have regarded sacrificial action as a central and distinctive element of their rituals, which is also expressed by way of classifying the rituals according to the kind of sacrificial substance (see below). So it is nonetheless justified to translate yajña as “sacrifice.” Sacrifice is then – in a broader meaning – to be understood as a complex of ritual processes and action in which the acts of ritual relinquishment of material objects take a central position.
A great part of Śrauta ritual acts is devoted to the procurement of well-being and fertility of the ritual patron and his joined family in this life and the hereafter. But special demands such as to conquer an enemy or to attain an elevated social position are ritual topics as well.
The basis of the concept of yajña is a so-called magical worldview (see e.g. Witzel, 1972; Schayer, 1925; Oldenberg, 1919) that can be detected even in the time of the Ṛgveda but later becomes dominant. Through the rituals, the gods can be forced to comply with the demands of the ritual patrons. The painstakingly exact exertion of the complicated ritual acts is of crucial importance for their success and postulated efficacy. Sacrifices have a macrocosmic dimension insofar as the continuation of the cosmic process (i.e. sunrise, sunset, annual cycles, cycles of fertility) too depends on their regular and rule-complying performance. The most prominent gods of the Ṛgveda – such as Agni, god of fire, Soma, deified form of the sacrificial drink soma, and above all the warrior god Indra – are still of importance, that is, they are included in the sacrifices. But in addition to Indra, who figures most prominently in many rituals, a new deity appears, the creator god Prajāpati, who is now connected to the great rituals, too. Various and partly even contradictory ideas or levels of ritual interpretation do exist in the texts side-by-side, which testifies to the gradual development of the Śrauta ritual system (see below).
The decline of vedic culture and religion began around 500 BCE and was further enhanced by the appearance and increasing influence of Buddhism. The tradition never did completely disappear, however, and there were revivals up to recent times. Even today, Śrauta rituals are occasionally performed (see below).
We are not able to delimit the time of its composition exactly or even present absolute dates for the various texts. The range of time can roughly be estimated at 1700 to 500 BCE: 1700 marks the beginnings of the Ṛgveda, and 500 approximately the time of codification of the language by the grammarian Pāṇini, and thus the transit from vedic to classical Sanskrit. The vedic texts have been orally authored in various “branches” of tradition (śākhā), which may also be described as “priestly schools” and have been handed down up to modern times almost without textual changes.
A detailed overview of the vedic texts is found in J. Gonda (1975) for Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas as well as (1977) for ritual Sūtras. In these volumes, problems of dating the texts are also discussed. An overview of the history of origins of the vedic canon and the social and political context of his development is found in M. Witzel (1997).
Vedic texts are ritual literature. They consist of liturgical material that is recited or chanted during the ritual, but also include material about the ritual, that is, rules for its performance, priestly interpretation, explication, and mystical speculation.
First, I shall consider the material that may be classified as liturgical in the strict sense:
The Ṛgvedasaṃhitā is a collection of verses (ṛc) that are grouped into hymns (sūkta) addressed to various deities. The verses are recited by the priest called hotṛ or his assistants during the ritual. However, not complete hymns are recited, but single or several verses, even from different hymns. An example for the complex interaction of the hotṛ with other priests is given below. The recitations of the hotṛ and his assistants during soma rituals are called Śāstra.
The Sāmaveda is a collection of chants (sāman), the verses of which are parallel to texts from the Ṛgveda. They are chanted by the udgātṛ priest and his assistants during the soma rituals (see below). The technical designation of such ritual chants is Stotra. Each Stotra corresponds with a Śāstra, a recitation by the abovementioned hotṛ.
The Yajurveda includes liturgical as well as interpretative material: mainly, the sacrificial formulas (yajus) are handed down here and collected according to rituals (roughly speaking) in the order and succession of their application in the ritual. With these formulas the adhvaryu accompanies his activity. He is the priest who, together with his assistants, performs the sacrificial acts proper, such as libations (āhuti). The Saṃhitās of the so-called Black Yajurveda additionally include Brāhmaṇa-like sections: the collection of sacrificial formulas is frequently followed by an explanation of when, and in connection with which ritual act, the respective formula is to be recited. Sometimes the meaning and purpose of the ritual elements or even the whole ritual are discussed. To legitimize rituals or singular activities, short, stereotypical “mythological” stories attribute their first enactment or “discovery” to gods.
The fourth Veda is the Atharvaveda, which originally was not connected to the Śrauta ritual system. The major part of this collection is related to the function of a family priest, especially of a king (purohita). Some verses are used by the brāhmaṇa priest, however, who is one of the major priests officiating in Śrauta rituals (on his function, see below).
The next layer of ritual literature consists of the Brāhmaṇas. Their self-declared purpose is the discussion of the connection between the ritual action and the words accompanying it, that is, the verbal part of the ritual (all verbal utterings, mainly ṛc, sāman, and yajus, are termed as mantras according to the Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra 1.3.1). The later exegetical tradition classifies the content of the Brāhmaṇas or of Brāhmaṇa-like texts, that is explanatory prose sections of the Black Yajurveda, in a twofold way: first, as the description of the ritual procedure (vidhi), and secondly, by its interpretation (arthavāda; see Malamoud, 1998, 28–34). The Brāhmaṇas do not offer a complete, chronological description of the complex ritual procedures but take the knowledge of the rituals for granted. Rather, a rationale and interpretation of the sacrificial rituals resting on the “magical” worldview is attempted: based on a common characteristic, elements of the ritual (actions, utensils, sacrificial substances, mantras, etc.) are connected to or identified with micro- or macrocosmic phenomena, concepts, or objects, as is the case, for example, in the following passage of the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa:
"[The adhvaryu priest] then draws 17 cups of soma, and [the neṣṭṛ priest]17 cups of surā [= beer], for to Prajāpati belong these to [saps of] plants, to wit the soma and the surā; and of these two the soma is truth, prosperity, light; and the surā untruth, misery, darkness. Both these [saps of] plants he thereby wins; for he who offers the vājapeya wins everything there, since he wins Prajāpati and Prajāpati indeed is everything there" (ŚBr. 5.1.2.10; trans. Eggeling, 1996, 8).
Frequently short mythological narratives are embedded in the ritualistic context to legitimize rituals, single actions, or rules, or to “historically” justify them – as in the commentary sections of the Black Yajurveda. These explanations of the ancient ritual specialists are a sort of “standardized hermeneutics” of the Śrauta system, not to say of vedic culture. They are indispensable for the semantic analysis of the ritual elements in a modern theoretical sense (for a discussion of the symbol concept of the vedic ritualists, see Parpola, 1979; on the so-called identifications of the Brāhmaṇa texts, see Wezler, 1996).
The Āraṇyakas, another group of texts, form a part of the Brāhmaṇas. The interpretation of the sacrificial rituals is deepened by the discussion of their macrocosmic dimension. Directly embedded into Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas or following them are the early Upaniṣads, the last text group of the vedic literature that is regarded as “revealed” in the philosophical schools of Vedānta and Mimāṃsā. In addition to the cosmic dimension of the sacrifices, human beings are now included in ritualistic speculation. Sacrifices are related to psychophysical concepts and functions of the human being, they are being interiorized, and as their highest form sometimes the purely mental performance is propagated. As is sometimes already mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa texts, the secret knowledge of the micro- and macrocosmic dimension of the rituals is of crucial importance for their efficacy, and this knowledge alone may be a substitute for the performance of the ritual.
The vedic texts that complete our knowledge mainly about the ritual processes are the Kalpasūtras, ritual guidelines, consisting mainly of four groups: Śrautasūtras, guidelines of the rituals belonging to the sacred revelation; Gṛhyasūtras, guidelines of domestic rituals; Dharmasūtras, guidelines of the basic religious order ( dharmaśāstra ); and Śulvasūtras, guidelines for measuring and construction of ritual enclosures. To get an idea of the processes in Śrauta sacrificial rituals, the Śrautasūtras are of special interest. They include detailed instructions for the respective officiants of how the extensive sacrifices discussed in the Brāhmaṇas and Yajurveda Saṃhitās are to be performed: the Śrautasūtras of the rgvedic tradition mainly include instructions for the hotṛ, those belonging to the Sāmaveda for the udgātṛ, and the ones belonging to the Yajurveda for the adhvaryu. For a comprehensive idea of the extremely complex processes, one needs to consult the respective chapters from the Sūtras of all three Vedas and put the various courses of action together. It is very difficult to reconstruct, on the basis of these instructions, what actually took place at the sacrificial site, for the mode of description is not chronological but structured and organized according to abstract principles. Beyond this the texts are authored by specialists for specialists who took knowledge of the ritual processes for granted.
It is impossible to reconstruct the ritual processes only by utilizing the Sūtra texts. One may assume here, too, that in the ritual praxis, the oral tradition, training, and handing down of practical knowledge by a teacher played an important role.
But there are texts of a considerably later period that were of crucial importance for the initial research on the rituals, namely, the ritual Paddhatis (“Outlines”) and Prayogas (“Handbooks”). These are generally part of the tradition of certain Śrautasūtras, authored by the various priestly schools (śākhās). These texts deal with what takes place at the sacrificial site chronologically. There are handbooks for singular priests but also those which deal with the tasks of groups of priests, and some describe only certain phases of a ritual.
The monographic studies of single rituals are of special interest. The earliest works are from the pioneering phase of vedic studies, including A. Hillebrandt (1879) on the darśapūrṇamāsa, the new- and full-moon sacrifice; J. Schwab (1886) on paśubandha, the animal sacrifice; A. Weber (1893) on the rājasūya, the royal consecration; and W. Caland (1893) on piṇḍapitṛyajña, the offerings to the ancestors. More recent studies are, for example, H. Krick (1982) on the agnyādheya (the establishing of sacrificial fires), F. Staal (1983) on the atirātrāgnicayana (see below), S. Einoo (1988) on the cāturmāsya (the seasonal sacrifices), M. Kolhatkar (1998) on the sautrāmaṇī (see below), and H. Teshima (2008) on the preliminary rites of the aśvamedha (the horse sacrifice). K. Steiner (2004) mainly consists of translations of texts about the vājapeya ritual. An edition of a text concerned with the agnyādheya is M. Sparreboom (1989). An introduction, which is still very useful, is given by A. Hillebrandt (1897), in which general features of the rituals as well as single rituals (of both Śrauta and Gṛhya type) are described. For the most important rituals (the basic forms of haviryajña and somayajña, see below), see also the Śrautakośa (Encyclopaedia of Vedic Sacrificial Ritual) edited by R.N. Dandekar and C.K. Kashikar between 1958 and 1994. In the so-called Sanskrit section of this work, relevant text sections of Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Śautasūtras pertaining to these rituals are collected.
Most of the monographs on single rituals are largely descriptive presentations of the ritual activities according to the Brāhmaṇas, Śrautasūtras, and Yajurveda Saṃhitās often connected with investigations of philological, cultural, historical, and other details. This is a great task in itself because the vedic texts present a lot of difficulties: many of them are not translated in a scholarly satisfying way or not translated at all into Western languages. Consequently these studies do not try to analyze or interpret the rituals in the broader context of ritual studies. Exceptions are the works by J.C. Heesterman (1957) and H. Krick (1982). Special cases are presented by H.W. Bodewitz (1973, 1976, and 1990) and J.E.M. Houben (1991), who investigate specific rituals in the light of a specific ancient interpretation.
Studies of a general character without focusing too much on specific rituals are, for example, S. Lévi (1898), M. Biardeau & C. Malamoud (1976), C. Malamoud (1989, 2005), F. Staal (1989, 1990), B.K. Smith (1989), and J.C. Heesterman (1993).
The major part of M. Biardeau & C. Malamoud’s Le sacrifice dans l’ Hindouisme (1976, 7–154) is written by M. Biardeau. Of special interest here is the chapter on sacrifice in the context of the Brahmanical orthodoxy (14–57), where M. Biardeau investigates the topics of sacrifice as a cosmogonic principle (based on an analysis of the famous puruṣa hymn [Puruṣasūkta; ṚV. 10.90]), its sociocosmic implications, and the significance of sacrifice in an individual’s life. The last part of the book (155–204) basically on the conceptualization of the dakṣiṇā, the “salary” of the priests in a vedic ritual, is written by C. Malamoud.
C. Malamoud (1989) wrote a collection of essays on ancient Indian culture and thought mainly drawing from the vedic texts, and a part of the articles focuses on certain aspects of Śrauta ritual. Thought, as represented in these texts, is organized around the theme of sacrifice, which is, as C. Malamoud puts it “an explanatory scheme (causally and analogically) not only for the world order, but also for all human actions and aspirations” (1998, 2).
B.K. Smith (1989) investigates the underlying basic principles of vedic domestic and Śrauta ritual in the broader context of the development of Hinduism. Starting from a deconstruction of some extant definitions of Hinduism, B.K. Smith argues that “legitimizing reference to the authority of the Veda” (14) is the constitutive base of Hinduism. He also critically reviews the theories of J.C. Heesterman (see below) and F. Staal (see below).
C. Malamoud (2005) is a collection of various studies on ritual, myth, and cosmogony. Essentially the author concentrates on the interrelation between vedic ritual and myth, the relationship seen as rival (see 43–58). He analyzes the scenic elements of the Śrauta rituals and examines the conditions under which these sacrificial dramas can be seen as “representation.” He also applies psychoanalytical ideas.
Since the 19th century, nearly all theorists of socioreligious studies and anthropology have been working on the fields of sacrifice or ritual in more or less detail. It is impossible to consider and discuss all the diverging approaches presented by numerous scholars and scientists, nor is it possible to give a summary of the discourse about ritual. A detailed and critical survey about so-called theories of sacrifice is given by J. Drexler (1993); for a short summary see, for example, T. Böhm (1998); detailed studies on ritual theories include C. Bell (1992) and J. Kreinath (2006); for short summaries, see, for example, B. Lang (1998) and B. Gladigow (1998); methodological criticism is in C. Bell (1987), C. Humphrey & J. Laidlaw (1994, 64–87), and F. Staal (1996); for a comprehensive bibliography, see J. Kreinath (2007).
The pioneers of “modern” studies in sacrifice and ritual, however, were H. Hubert & M. Mauss with their classic article “Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice” published in 1899. In a time dominated by evolutionist approaches in this field, H. Hubert & M. Mauss were the first social scientists who engaged in analyzing specific sacrificial rituals regarding their process-oriented structure, symbolism, and functions, also taking into account the intentions of the performers. According to H. Hubert & M. Mauss, the ritual process is basically a transfer, a transition of the sacrificial matter from the profane to the sacral sphere. By this transfer the religious condition of the ritual patron is changed. H. Hubert & M. Mauss are of special interest in the present context, because they were the first social scientists who utilized Śrauta rituals extensively for establishing a general theory on sacrificial rituals. Their main sources were the paśubandha according to J. Schwab (1886), but they included the darśapūrṇamāsa according to A. Hillebrandt (1879) as well. They were influenced by S. Lévi’s classic La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Brahmanas (1898). On the one hand, their theory is considered obsolete nowadays because it focuses too exclusively on the fact of the sacrificial matter being destroyed or killed and above all because it is based on the Durkheimian dichotomy of profane versus sacral. On the other hand, it still provides a good starting point from which adequate theoretical implications of ritual and its interpretation can be derived.
A.B. Keith (1925) is the first Indologist who relatively broadly discusses the then-current theories for interpretation of sacrificial rituals, though he does not apply them to specific rituals.
The first Indologist to introduce a sociological and structuralist perspective in the investigation of a specific Śrauta ritual was J.C. Heesterman (1957) in his book about the rājasūya ritual. Heesterman was inspired by H. Hubert & M. Mauss and by another classic of M. Mauss, namely the Essai sur le don (1924). Starting from the study of the rājasūya, J.C. Heesterman in a series of articles and finally in a monograph (1993) developed a model in which he tried to explain the “classical” ritual system presented in the Śrauta texts as originating from “preclassical” structures. These preclassical structures according to J.C. Heesterman are characterized by two rival sacrificial parties engaging in real lethal combats/contests. The basic structural principle would be violent “exchange” between these two parties. The martial symbolism, being very prominent in the Śrauta texts, is explained by J.C. Heesterman as the euphemized remainder of those real sacrificial combats that he projects back into “die Welt einer heroischen Epoche“ (Heesterman, 1982, 16). His explanation of the origin of vedic sacrifice was not accepted because of its lack of histo-ricity: the preclassical structures postulated by J.C. Heesterman cannot be located historically or textually (see e.g. Minkowski, 1996, 343). It is undisputed of course that rituals must have gone through a long period of development until they appeared in the “classical” form of the Śrauta texts. But earlier stages can only occasionally be located in the texts, or can be reconstructed with difficulty. Furthermore, in J.C. Heesterman’s studies the delimitations between “real life,” the ritual as the “reconstruction and re-enactment of reality,” and myth become blurred. Also not considered is the fact that antagonistic elements in the broad sense of the term (e.g. competitions, ritualized fights), and also the symbolism of war and death, are widespread as parts of rituals in many cultures. Thus, such ritual elements cannot be utilized as arguments for the postulated “preclassical phase” (see Oberlies, 1998, 269–270). Rather, it is probable that the vedic rituals included such elements even in earlier developmental stages – perhaps as the ritual reenactment of reality. So in spite of J.C. Heesterman’s many correct observations and brilliant interpretations of details, his approach to Śrauta ritual in general was accepted only with reservations (for a critical assessment, see also Smith, 1989, 40–46). H. Krick (1982) in her thorough investigation of the agnyādheya ritual follows J.C. Heesterman’s conception of classical/preclassical, but does not give up the connection with philological and historical facts, in which lies the great value of H. Krick’s work.
Much discussion arose surrounding the works of F. Staal: he started with a detailed documentation and investigation of the agnicayana ritual performed in 1975 by Nambūtiri Brahmans in Kerala, which was published in 1983 in two large volumes entitled Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar. Finally, F. Staal radically rejected all existing interpretative approaches to ritual because of the “meaninglessness of ritual” postulated most effectively in Rules without Meaning (1989), which was widely received. His famous work Agni (alongside with the film by Robert Gardner, 1976) is probably the only description of a Śrauta ritual being adopted broadly outside the limited circle of Veda scholars. The documentation and investigation of such performances for their own sake is valuable and necessary (see below). Regarding the language of the mantras and the symbolism of the other elements, the Śrauta rituals performed today are extremely anachronistic. They have survived as pure activity detached from their sociocultural context. This might be one of the reasons that inspired F. Staal’s perception of the ritual’s meaninglessness and his postulate that ritual has nothing to do with religion and society (see e.g. Staal, 1996, 123). F. Staal utilized the results derived from the special case of the Nambūtiri agnicayana for establishing a new ritual theory, which radically challenged all former approaches. Particularly his insistence that ritual acts are meaningless has caused much discussion (see e.g. Smith, 1989, 38–46, 222f.; Scharfe, 1990; Grapard, 1991; Mack, 1991; Strenski, 1991; Witzel, 1992; see also Staal’s debate with his critics 1991 and 1993; on “the meaninglessness of mantras,” see also his most recent publication Staal, 2008, 191) and was indeed seminal for the most important work on ritual theory published during the last years, namely, C. Humphrey & J. Laidlaw’s The Archetypal Actions of Ritual (1994), a view corroborated by recent trend (see below).
Despite the fact that there were attempts at mutual exchange, an interface between philology-centered Śrauta studies and theory-oriented fields of socioreligious studies and anthropology has not been established so far (see also Staal, 2008, 224–228). For a new approach to the investigation of Śrauta ritual, it seems appropriate to start again, like in the pioneering phase of Śrauta studies, from analyses of specific rituals and to combine philological with a socioreligious or anthropological methods.
For some rituals, especially for soma rituals, the basic site has to be considerably expanded (for the various types of ritual enclosures, see e.g. Ranade, 2006, 333–348). East of the original enclosure, where the introductory part of the ritual takes place, a new ritual enclosure has to be measured out, the mahāvedi (7), with two huts in which the soma extraction takes place (havirdhānamaṇḍapa [9]) and where some of the priests sit (sadas, 8). The original sacrificial fire (āhavanīya) is transferred to the mahāvedi, where some additional fireplaces are set up too. The new āhavanīya fire (11) is placed on a square mound of earth (uttaravedi [10]). East of the uttaravedi, the sacrificial post (yūpa [12]) is erected, to which the sacrificial animals are tied.
Fig. 1: The ritual enclosure.
(1) patnῑśālā
(2) gārhapatya
(3) dakṣināgni
(4) vedi
(5) āhavanīya
(6) prāgvaṃśamaṇḍapa
(7) mahāvedi
(8) sadas
(9) havirdhānamaṇḍapa
(10) uttaravedi
(11) new āhavanīya
(12) yūpa
Not only milk, clarified butter, and varieties of cake and of cereal mush, but also portions of meat serve as sacrificial oblations. The most exclusive offering is the sacral drink soma, extracted from certain plants whose original botanical identity still is a matter of discussion, although most scholars tend to favor ephedra (according to Falk, 1989, and others; Nyberg, 1995, agrees; for a different view, see Stuhrmann, 2006).
Apart from this, a variant number of officiants is necessary. The most important priests (mahaṛtvij) are the abovementioned hotṛ, adhvaryu, udgātṛ, and brāhmaṇa. The brāhmaṇa has to be familiar with the three vedic branches (Ṛgveda, Sāmaveda, and Yajurveda). He has to supervise the whole procedure, intervene if mistakes happen, and conduct expiations (prāyaścitti; on mishaps in vedic rituals, see Michaels, 2007, 121–132). In some rituals the brāhmaṇa has additional important tasks (for details on the particular position of the brāhmaṇa, see Bodewitz, 1983). The rituals are performed on behalf of a patron (yajamāna, usually translated as “sacrificer”), which means that the desired result of the ritual will not go to the priests, or the general public, but to him. The patron has to belong to the three upper classes (caste); some rituals are exclusively meant for Brahmans, some for kings. Also, a ritual patron must be initiated and married. The initiation ritual, during which a young man is being invested with the sacred thread, is a life-cycle ritual ( saṃskāra ) being part of the domestic rituals of the Gṛhyasūtras. The patron and his wife/wives take part in the ritual, but in general they are given only modest roles in the performance (e.g. the formal sacrifice tyāga mentioned above). In connection with the ritual, they have to observe various rules, too, such as sexual abstinence and limitations in talking and eating.
Integral to rituals is the so-called dakṣiṇā, a more or less substantial gift given to the priests in the course or end of the ritual by the patron. In vedic theology this gift is not considered as payment to the priests but is conceptualized as being essential to the efficacy of the ritual. According to Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 1.2.2.1 (Kāṇvīya recension), the dakṣiṇā is an offering sacrificed to the priest, by which the sacrificial ritual as a whole is strengthened and rendered complete. Or, as Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 1.9.3.1 puts it, “That sacrifice . . . goes forth towards the world of the gods: after it follows the dakṣiṇā . . . and holding on to the dakṣiṇā the sacrificer” The Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā 1.11.17 puts it more succinctly: “It is by the dakṣiṇā that the sacrificer reaches the world of heaven.” Inspired by M. Mauss (1923–1924), J.C. Heesterman summarizes his analysis of the concept of the dakṣiṇā as follows:
"Rather than a salary the dakṣiṇā is to be considered as a gift ... Like the gift in general the dakṣiṇā establishes, or is expressive of, a bond between the giver and the recipient; and it produces rich returns for the giver ... The force of the bond between the giver and the recipients can be best illustrated by the fact that the sacrificer when distributing the dakṣiṇās is considered to give himself: for these parts of himself the dakṣiṇās are substituted" (Heesterman, 1959, 242–243).
In his detailed study on the concept of the dakṣiṇā, C. Malamoud further analyzes the complex relation between sacrificer and priest:
"La dakṣiṇā est ce par quoi le sacrifiant achète les services du prêtre es ce par quoi il se rachète de lui. C’est la rémunération qui établit à la fois ce contact et cette distance. La dakṣiṇā que verse le sacrifiant au ṛtvij se fonde sur la confiance, śraddhā, qu’il a en lui. Mais la réciproque est aussi vraie: c’est parce qu’ il le paie qu’ il a confiance en lui; et de deux manières: le sacrifiant sait que le ṛtvij ayant été rémunéré . . . sera tenu de faire son travail, il sait aussi que de cette façon il est lui-même libre à l’égard du ṛtvij" (Malamoud, 1976, 197).
This kind of remuneration (gold, payment in kind, clothing, animals, etc.) is adapted to each ritual context.
A more categorical qualification is that between prakṛti and vikṛti rituals. Prakṛti “paradigm, prototype, model” is the primary form of a ritual in which all subordinate rites are prescribed by the texts while vikṛtis are modifications of the former; thus, the new-moon and full-moon sacrifice is the prakṛti of all vegetarian sacrifices (iṣṭi), and of the animal sacrifice to the goods Agni and Soma, which in turn serves as the paradigm of all the animal sacrifices. The agniṣṭoma serves as a paradigm of the soma rituals. Paradigms and their modifications can differ, for example regarding the mantras, the kind of sacrificial offering, the material of utensils, or the deities addressed (see e.g. some modifications of the new- and full-moon sacrifice mentioned in ĀpŚS. 3.10–17; see also 4.10.1). Only those sacrifices which serve as a paradigm are treated in detail in the texts. For the modified rituals, only those points where they differ from their model are described in detail. The rest is either tacitly understood or briefly indicated (see Ikari & Arnold, 1983, 479). So, for example, for the vājapeya ritual, a secondary modification of the agniṣṭoma, only the special features of the ritual are treated in the respective sections of the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, and Sūtras covering few sections of the respective texts, for example, sections 1–7 of chapter 18 of the Āpastambaśrautasūtra, whereas the agniṣṭoma comprises as many as the complete chapters 10–13 of the same text. The direct model of the vājapeya is the ṣoḍaśin soma ritual, which in turn is a vikṛti of the agniṣṭoma. Thus there are rituals that are only prakṛti (as the agniṣṭoma) and others that are vikṛti and prakṛti as well (as the ṣoḍaśin; see Sreekrishna Sarma, 1983, 163). The paradigms are modules that usually are combined with one another, too (see below).
A third differentiation is based on the kind of the sacrificial substance. On the one hand, there are the haviryajñasaṃsthā, “basic forms of a sacrifice of sacrificial substance,” to which vegetarian as well as nonvegetarian – and, interestingly, the only sacrifice including alcoholic sacrificial substance – belong. On the other hand, strictly separated from these are the “basic forms of the soma sacrifice” (somayajñasaṃsthā).
• agnihotra (see Bodewitz, 1976, 1973) is a milk oblation that has to be offered twice daily. The performance of this ritual is the epitome of an “orthoprax” lifestyle in the sense of Brahmanic religion.
• darśapūrṇamāsas (see Hillebrandt, 1879) are the new-moon, respectively the full-moon sacrifices to be performed every fortnight. Central is the sacrifice of two cakes made of rice or barley flour as well as an offering of clarified butter.
• piṇḍapitṛyajña (see Caland, 1893) is a sacrifice of rice balls for the ancestors, performed on the new-moon day. Here, as always in connection with ancestor rituals, various rules have to be followed that make the opposition of the world of the living and that of the dead visible, for example, the sacrificial thread is worn over the right, not the left, shoulder. The offering takes place at the southern fire, not the regular sacrificial fire.
• āgrayaṇa, the sacrifice of the first-harvested fruits of the field, which is offered up to three times a year (barley in spring, rice or millet during or after the monsoon in autumn, bamboo seeds in summer).
• cāturmāsya (see Einoo, 1998) are tertiary sacrifices performed at the beginning of the three annual seasons. Common to all three rituals are vegetarian oblations to five deities. In spring, the vaiśvadeva ritual takes place; its basic structure is the blueprint for the other tertiary rituals as well. The second cāturmāsya, the varuṇapraghāsa, is performed during the rainy season. This ritual has remarkable characteristics: a he-goat and a ram modeled from barley dough, which are sacrificed in the end, play an important role. Also remarkable is the role of the patron’s wife, who is to be interrogated by a priest in the course of the ritual. He interrogates her regarding the number of lovers she has besides her husband. The lovers named are left by the priest to the discretion of the god Varuṇa, the major deity of this ritual, for punishment. The purpose of this interrogation is to charge the ritual sphere with feminine, sexual energy, and thus fertility (Jamison, 1996). In autumn/winter, the sākamedha is performed in which an extensive ancestor ritual is embedded too. Another specialty is the compensation of the feared ambivalent god Rudra with sacrificial cakes, which are not – as usual – offered into the fire, but thrown on a mole hill or attached to a tree, stump, or a termite hill.
• paśubandha (for all details see Schwab, 1886) is the paradigm and most simple form of animal sacrifice in which one he-goat is offered. There are more elaborate forms as well, which include the sacrifice of cows, sheep, and other animals, sometimes in great number. Animal sacrifices are also part of the soma rituals (see below). One of the first ritual acts is the preparation of a sacrificial post (yūpa) cut from a tree trunk. Later, it will serve to tie the sacrificial animals to it. After elaborate ceremonies, the animals are suffocated or strangled by a special officiant, the śamitṛ “pacifier.” The authors of the vedic texts present the act of killing as “pacification,” usually referring to it by various euphemisms, the most frequently used expression for “put to death” being the root saṃ + jñapay- “cause to agree [in its death].” After the death of the animal, a number of ritual acts are performed that – in the eyes of the ancient ritualists – effect the restoration to life of the animal (on a discussion of these rites, see Malamoud, 1998, 169–180). One rite, for example, is performed by the wife of the ritual patron (for a discussion of her role, see Jamison, 1996, 146–149): she pours water on the legs and on the orifices of the dead body, thus causing the vital breaths to reenter the animal and effecting its resurrection. This act is conceptualized by the vedic authors as a rebirth of the victim from the patron’s wife. Now the body is divided up into portions whose number varies, according to various vedic sources. According to C. Malamoud (1998, 170), the authors of vedic treatises on sacrifice seem to be “especially preoccupied with how best to proceed so that the parts resulting from the division of the body might reconstitute themselves so as to form a living whole.” According to an explanation given in the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 3.8.4.1, there are 33 offerings of meat portions, which represent the ten fingers, ten toes, and ten vital breaths (prāṇa), as well as exhaling, inhaling, and through-breathing being the constitutive elements of human body. Thus the number of meat offerings represents a living man, and, furthermore, the animal victim is conceptualized as a substitute for the ritual patron. The most important sacrificial meat portion is the peritoneum (vapā), but various other parts of the meat are considered fit for sacrificing. Blood, stomach, and excrements are taken – as the share for demons – to a pit outside of the sacrificial enclosure. Every animal sacrifice includes a variable number of vegetarian offerings as well.
• sautrāmaṇī (see Kolhatkar, 1999) is a ritual in which beer (surā) and broth play a central role as ritual substances. Here, too, various paradigms (vegetarian sacrifice, animal sacrifice) are combined. Alcohol is used only restrictively in the vedic ritual system.
• soma rituals (see Caland & Henry, 1906–1907): central to these rituals is the preparation and offering of the sacred drink soma to various gods. The basic form of soma ritual, which also includes elaborate vegetarian and animal sacrifices, is the agniṣṭoma (see below). Agnicayana (see Staal, 1983; for an interpretation in the context of the development of the karman doctrine, see Tull, 1989, esp. 72–102) is a modified form of the basic soma ritual, which includes the arrangement of a bird-shaped altar made of bricks in five layers. Special cases also based on the soma paradigm are the aśvamedha (the horse sacrifice; see Dumont, 1927; for an interpretation of specific aspects, see Krick, 1972) and rājasūya (the royal consecration; see Heesterman, 1957). These two highly complex rituals are reserved for kings.
• pravargya (see van Buitenen, 1968; Houben, 1991) is a ritual usually performed not independently but in the context of soma sacrifices. Central in the ritual is a clay pot, which is termed mahāvīra, “great hero/man.” This pot is heated and then filled with clarified butter and milk from cows and goats, which results in spectacular evaporation of steam (see also below). Next, various ritual utensils are displayed resembling a human form on a rack made of basket work serving as a throne (āsandī). This symbolizes the new body of the ritual patron, which has been created by the ritual.
The vājapeya ritual is dealt with more or less extensively in the Yajurvedasaṃhitā, in the Brāhmaṇas of the yajurvedic and samavedic tradition, and in almost all Śrautasūtras of the Yajurveda. The oldest and most important sources are the Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā 1.11.1–10, Kāṭhakasaṃhitā 13.14, and 14.1–10, Taittirīyasaṃhitā 1.7.7–12, and Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa 1.3.2.-9 (see Steiner, 2004; for a detailed interpretation of the ritual, see Steiner, forthcoming).
All soma rituals follow the paradigm of the agniṣṭoma, which has been described by W. Caland and V. Henry (1906–1907). For all details refer to this work.
The beginning is the dīkṣā, the consecration of the ritual patron, which can be of variable duration; it takes one day at least, however. He will receive new clothes, a turban, and a belt made of muñja grass and a staff; hair and nails will be cut, and he will sit on an antelope skin and has to stay in a certain hut. Also, there are restrictions regarding food and speech, and similar rules apply to his wife. The consecration has the character of a separation rite, which effects the separation of the ritual subject from his fixed position in the everyday social structure to be transformed and marks the entrance into the liminal phase, which is characterized by the temporary leveling of the former status. The consecrated becomes – regardless of his former social status – a Brahman, or is being approximated to a Brahman. This means that he is connected with the brahman, the formulation of truth (according to Thieme, 1952, 91–129), the revealed vedic word and its innate magical-ritual power. Hand in hand with this is goes another function of the dīkṣā, namely, the preparation of the ritual subject for his rebirth from the sacrifice by his ritual death, or his being guided back to the embryonic state (see e.g. Heesterman, 1957, 97f.; first in Lévi, 1898, 102). Death and entrance into the mother’s womb are congruent. This double aspect of the dīkṣā is paralleled by many passage rites, not only in vedic culture (see Turner 2000, 95).
Following the dīkṣā are three days during which the so-called upasad offerings take place. In the Brāhmaṇa texts, these are connected to mythological accounts about sieges and assaults (thus the designation upasad “siege”). During these days various preparatory sacrifices are offered, but they mainly serve to prepare the soma extraction: the soma plants are ritually bought, and a new ritual enclosure (the mahāvedi, see above), including a hut in which the soma pressing takes place, is prepared. Then, the day of the extraction, sacrifice, and consumption of soma follows, which is done in three pressing sessions (savana): the morning pressing (prataḥsavana), the midday pressing (mādhyandinasavana), and the third or evening pressing (tritīyasavana or arbhavasavana). The designation of “third” instead of “evening pressing” reflects that it was frequently impossible to perform all three sessions in one day, although this is prescribed in the texts.
An important basic principle is the correspondence of graha “soma cups/draughts,” Stotras, chants of the udgātṛ priests, and Śāstra, recitations of the hotṛ priests. Each soma sequence (filling of one or a group of cups, sacrificing, consumption) is connected with a certain Stotra and Śāstra. Most of the Stotras are chanted after the filling of the cups and precede the Śāstras, which are recited before the offering and consumption of the cups. Complex dialogues between certain priests precede the recitations and chants (compare the libations of the yajati type mentioned above). The first Stotra of the morning pressing session, the bahiṣpavamāna, is chanted outside the havirdhāna hut (see above) during the purification of the soma drink. Its text consists of Sāmaveda 2.1.1.1–3 (which is parallel to Ṛgveda 9.11.1–3; 9.64.28–30; 9.66.10–12). Its first part (udgῑtha) is chanted in a special mode called aniruktagāna “chanting without actually pronouncing” (Buitenen 1959, 180f.), meaning, all syllables are replaced by the sound o while the duration of the syllables and the pitch are retained. The corresponding first recitation of the morning pressing is the Ājyaśāstra, which consists of the verses 1–6 of the Ṛgveda hymn 3.13. The number of soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, whose texts can also vary, is the most important distinctive element of the various soma sacrifices. The agniṣṭoma is characterized by 12 soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras: five for the morning and midday pressing each, two during the third pressing. Very important are also the animal sacrifices, of which the so-called savanīyapaśu, or kratupaśu, is the foremost. The number, kind, and deities of these animal sacrifices are the second most important distinguishing features of the various soma rituals. The killing of this sacrificial animal or animals usually takes place during the morning pressing, sacrificing the meat portions during the third pressing. In the agniṣṭoma a he-goat is sacrificed on behalf of the gods Agni and Soma (the deified form of the sacred drink of the same name) as kratupaśu. Finally, the ritual is concluded by a bath (avabhṛtha) of all participants (priests, ritual patron, and his wife) and the sacrifice of a cow.
The soma rituals named above are distinguished from the agniṣṭoma by additional soma sequences and corresponding Stotras, Śāstras, and sacrificial animals. The ukthya has 15 soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, and the three additional ones are added in the third pressing session. Besides this, an additional sacrificial animal, a he-goat, is to be offered to Indra and Agni. The ṣodaśin requires 16 soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, and a further additional sacrificial animal, a ram, for Indra. The atyagniṣṭoma is characterized by adding to the 12 soma sequences of the agniṣṭoma the so-called ṣodaśingraha, ṣodaśinstotra, and ṣodaśinśāstra. Also, the sacrificial animal for Indra, the ram, is required. It is thus a short version of the ṣodaśin. The particularity of the atirātra “lasting overnight” consists of – as the name suggests – a ritual performance that continues through the night: analogous to the three pressings during the day, there are three nocturnal sessions of four soma sequences each. Also, a total of 11 kratupaśu animals are obligatory. There is a detailed documentation by F. Staal (1983) on this soma ritual, based on a performance in 1975 in which the atirātra has been combined with an agnicayana (see above). The aptoryāma requires four additional soma sequences, which are added after the last Stotra/Śāstra of the atirātra.
Regarding the soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, the vājapeya builds on the model of the ṣodaśin (ĀpŚS. 18.1.4). It is characterized by 17 soma sequences, and by additional sacrificial animals, namely a cow for the maruts and 17 he-goats for the creator deity Prajāpati. The vājapeya also includes a number of spectacular ritual actions that start during the midday pressing session:
For the rgvedic period (see Oberlies, 1998, 333–362; 1999, 106–118), one has to assume bigger and smaller tribes living in relative autonomy and egalitarianism. Their lifestyle was characterized by “Fluktuation zwischen Kampf, Weiterzug und friedlicher Sesshaftigkeit” (fluctuation among fight, nomadism, and peaceful settlement; Oberlies, 1998). Societal stratification was not yet very pronounced, or fixed. The basic unit of the tribes was the joint family (gṛha “house”), which was headed by the gṛhapati and his wife. The position of the head of the household within the joint family was like that of the “king” (from a modern perspective, perhaps “chief,” or “war lord”; see Schlerath, 1995, 32) of a tribe. This results in another problem in reconstructing social structure: it cannot be absolutely determined whether for instance (ruler-) designations relate to the primary or secondary social structure, which means to the heads of joint families on the one hand or to the chiefs of tribes or even larger polities on the other.
Several of those gṛha formed one viś “settlement, dwelling.” The form of rule of these tribes can be termed – following T. Oberlies – as “Wahlkönigtum” (elected kingship) and “komplementäres Königtum” (complementary kingship): in times of crisis and war, a “war king” or “war chief” was elected who was replaced by a “peace king” in times of peaceful settlement. Culture was probably also characterized by free and widely prevalent acculturation, which led to mixing with local and “aboriginal” elements (see Witzel, 1995, 10). The rituals, or rather some rituals, were the collective affair of the viś (and/or the gṛha?), the benefit of the ritual going to the whole community, whose members were also the actors of the ritual performance. One can assume that various ritual traditions existed side-by-side, mutually influencing one another, whereas in the Ṛgveda only one is represented. The tribes probably also had ritual specialists acting independently of the orthoprax system represented in the vedic texts, although their ritual practice can be detected only in a very limited way in the hieratic system of the Vedic canon.
Towards the end of the rgvedic period, while the mantra collections of the Black Yajurveda were being created for the first time, bigger political units emerged (Witzel, 1995, 1–26). Now, society is characterized by “a front of the Kṣatriya and the Brahmans (brahmakṣatra) against the people (viś).” In the course of time, the stricter stratification along the line of the classical varṇa concept emerged. Also, as a new concept of rule, hereditary kingship developed, that is, the establishment of dynasties. This poses, in a different way from before, the problem of legitimating the rulers and participation of the societal elite in the brahmakṣatra alliance. According to M. Witzel, the new kings established the Śrauta system in order to control the old elite, consisting of priests and aristocracy, and thereby strengthening their own position. So the Śrauta system served the rulers to legitimize their permanent rule, which was no longer established through election, and to consolidate their power. The analysis of the vājapeya shows that this was effected, among other things, by having members of the elite participate in power by permitting them to acquire social prestige through rituals.
Rivalries between rulers and elite, within the elite, and between the elite and “the people” were channeled by the “Śrauta way of stratification” (Witzel, 1995, 12). Śrauta rituals serve several levels of festivity and complexity, that is, the material expenditure, so that every member of society had the opportunity, according to his personal resources, to elevate his own status through performing rituals. So even access to the Śrauta ritual means elevated status. How such a status elevation is effected, or better performed, becomes clear in the vājapeya ritual.
There is no doubt that the Śrauta system is only the last step in the long development of the rituals, up to their last version of textualization in the Śrautasūtras. Since the origin of the mantra collections of the Black Yajurveda – a first textualization – the practice of the rituals (or at least their major parts) must have existed in approximately the form in which they are handed down in the Sūtras that emerged much later. Whether we can actually ascertain the ritual development from the text history of the Yajurvedasaṃhita is an unresolved question. So it is not sure whether the rituals had a past to look back at at the time of the mantra collections, or whether they were conceptualized then only, as is opined by M. Witzel (1995, 25). Likewise there is a wide consensus that elements from various different ritual traditions found their way into the Śrauta system. As can be shown by analyzing, for example, the vājapeya synchronically, in some cases diachronic conclusions can be drawn regarding former stages of development, meanings, or functions of the rituals. But it continues to be very difficult or impossible to exactly reconstruct earlier stages of development, or to determine elements from different traditions beyond a doubt.
In the transition from the rgvedic ritual to the Śrauta system, the following, partly contradictory, factors can be determined, which are valid not just for the vedic ritual:
• Rituals in hieratic religions tend to keep their forms unchanged over a very long time, or to keep at least single archaic practices. According to Lang (1998, 449), the “Erstarrung zur Unveränderlichkeit” (freezing to changelessness) and the conservative tradition of once-fixed rites is one of the characteristics that can be frequently observed in cultic action. Ascriptions of meaning and functions by ritual specialists may change, however.
• According to B. Gladigow (1998, 458), it is typical for the development of rituals to become more comprehensive and elaborate. The increasing complexity is part of a general process of the professionalization of religion, which goes hand in hand with ever more specialists who guarantee and control the rule-consistent performance of a complex ritual. The professionalization of religion, in contrast, is an expression of an increasing social stratification and specialization. These observations fully apply to the development of the Śrauta system in vedic society. The development of religious specialists is also accompanied by the textualization of rituals, which on his part is of great importance for the formation of liturgical authority. Processes of this kind can probably be observed often, when – because of political motives – reforms of ritual systems are being established (see Bell 1988).
• M. Witzel presupposes “early forms of inclusionism” for the formation of the Śrauta system (Witzel, 1995, 10). “Inclusivism,” which has been described as characteristic of later Indian religion, indeed represents an important strategy for the Śrauta ritualists – to establish and maintain their hegemony. To include something is a method to control it and at the same time avoid confrontation. In analyzing the ritual texts, one finds numerous examples of how contradictory statements – obviously originating from different traditions – or older passages next to younger ones are left in place. M. Witzel (1995) has introduced another concept taken from Hinduism studies, “Sanskritization” (first introduced by Srinivas, 1952), in the study of vedic religion. It would be productive to include the concepts of “great and little tradition” first introduced by R. Redfield & M.B. Singer (1954) as well.
I have already mentioned that elements from various ritual traditions have been included in the Śrauta system: it is convenient here to adopt the differentiation of rituals, or ritual traditions, in liturgy-centered and performance-centered ones by J.M. Atkinson (1989, esp. 14f., 252, 298). For a discussion of these categories, see C. Humphrey & J. Laidlaw (1994, 8–12). Liturgy-centered rituals are performed according to a “film script,” while in performance-centered rituals the officiants act freely. Depending on need, they may use elements of an established ritual repertoire and adapt them to specific situations. All societies have both kinds of ritual traditions, and their members make use of both of them, depending on the situation. In my opinion, the Ṛgveda already represents a ritual system having a tendency toward fixed form that was further developed to become the completely liturgy-centered Śrauta system, while elements from other traditions have been included. This can be demonstrated in the cases of the cults of soma and surā in vedic religion (Steiner, forthcoming).
The following “novelties” of the Śrauta ritualists can be detected in the Black Yajurveda and Brāhmaṇa texts’ rituals:
• Various developmental stages of ritualistic interpretation: ritual elements or complete sequences of acts are interpreted in a new way, and various explanations exist side-by-side. The new interpretations are not ad hoc inventions but represent logical further developments of old concepts that coexist alongside the new ones (see for instance in the vājapeya the development of the interpretation of chariot races as “races around the sun as prize” being interpreted as “ride to the world of heaven”).
• The development of new “myths”: the position of the old cosmogonic myths in the direct sense (which can structurally still be detected in the rituals) is taken by other, new (?) mythological tales – partly with the “old” protagonists – of an exclusively etiological-legitimatory character. In this the “appropriation” of the old structures by the representatives of the new system is reflected.
• New deities: the place of Indra, who dominates in the rgvedic soma ritual, is taken by the creator god Prajāpati as the “mythic prototype” of the ritual patron. However, in the Brāhmaṇa texts the ritual patron is still frequently identified with Indra.
• Closely related with this is the belief in the automatic efficacy of the rituals, if performed correctly. T. Oberlies (1998, 276), based on H. Krick (1975), has used the term “Epiphanieritual” (epiphanic ritual) for the rgvedic soma ritual, that is, in the ritual a clear manifestation or visible effect of the deity/deities (especially of Indra) takes place. It is the aim of the ritualists to effect the manifestation of Indra (Krick, 1975, 30). According to the new views of the Śrauta specialists, the success of the rituals does not, however, depend on whether the deity/Indra is actually “incorporated” but on the correct performance of all ritual acts by the specialists.
• To some extent, ritual is withdrawn from society to become the sole concern of the individual yajamāna. This becomes visible in the postulated effects and purposes ascribed to a ritual, such as the vājapeya: the primary effect of this ritual mentioned in the texts is to elevate the patron to a state called svarājya, which indicates an elevated social position. But alongside this function of status elevation, which affects society as a whole, one more ritual topic, the ascension of the yajamāna to the world of heaven, is given great significance. This ascension is conceptualized as a ritual death or self-sacrifice of the patron.
• Closely connected with this point is the tendency of internalization or spiritualization of the rituals, a tendency that only becomes increasingly manifest only towards the end of Brāhmaṇa period (on the internalization of sacrifice in connection with the concept of saṃnyāsa “renouncement,” see Biardeau, 1976, 57–80). One more point manifesting itself in late and post vedic thought is the tendency toward moralization concerning the problem of killing of sacrificial animals (see Houben, 1999) as opposed to the emerging concept of ahiṃsā (see also Alsdorf, 1962; Bodewitz, 1999). Also, an emerging emphasis on individuality seems to play an important role in these tendencies: the position of the human being seems to be formed not so much by outward determinants (institutionalized roles) but by inner qualities (e.g. through cognition, in upanishadic thought).
Important reasons for not performing the extensive Śrauta rituals all too often are certainly the high organizational expenses and costs (see e.g. Staal, 1992; Mahadevan & Staal 2005). The fear is expressed repeatedly that the traditions are dying out. The reason for that danger lies, among other things, in the fact that there are few people and still fewer institutions to look after the continued existence of the manifold, exclusively oral transmission of the liturgical texts and prescriptions concerning their recitation and intonation and the smooth performance of the rituals. The chances that a priest could earn a living are small in light of the enormous expenses that his training and such performances demand. But T.P. Mahadvan & F. Staal (2005) are more optimistic than in earlier publications with respect to the continued existence of the Śrauta rituals of the Nambūtiri Brahmans.
The Nambūtiri tradition concerns the following rituals:
The performance of a vājapeya ritual in Pune and Maharastra in 1955 documented under the supervision of J.A.B. van Buitenen was clearly different in character from the Nambūtiri rituals. In the film, this performance makes a clearly stronger “revivalist” impression than the Nambūtiri rituals do. T.P. Mahadevan & F. Staal (2005) characterize the tradition of the Nambūtiri as “strictly oral, even atavistic but living” and, in contrast, the sacrificers from Maharastra and other regions as “innovative and literate.”
All modern Śrauta performances are to some extent “Hinduized” (see Smith, 1987, 32–51), which means among other things that certain ritual practices are avoided, such as the offering of the alcoholic drink surā prescribed in the vājapeya being replaced by milk. In the quoted performances of the agnicayana and vājapeya, the numerous sacrificial animals required, after the prescribed rites are carried out, are not killed. The portions of meat to be sacrificed are replaced by vegetarian oblatory materials. Animal sacrifice is “hotly disputed,” but many sacrificers still offer animal sacrifices (Smith, 1987, 40). The substitution of animal victims by vegetarian offerings is accepted in ancient Śrautasūtras, however (ĀpŚS. 12.24.10; KātŚS. 10.9.14–15).
The agniṣṭoma of 2003 represents, according to T.P. Mahadevan and F. Staal (2005, 383), “a new Śrauta model in the sense that its patron is the public at large.” Nevertheless, in this performance a yajamāna is also appointed according to the traditional rules. As F. Staal admits, the last Nambūtiri rituals performed in accordance with the classical model, that is, with a sacrificial patron who (or whose extended family) financed and organized the ritual, occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. That means that the other rituals cited here were possible only with the help of a wider circle of sponsors, too. This applies also to the vājapeya ritual in 1955 that we mentioned above, which was associated with a large public collection.
The beginnings of vedic ritual can be traced back to Indo-Iranian times. An elaborate ritual system can be assumed even for the early vedic period, which becomes clear from the most ancient vedic text, the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā (c. 1200 BCE). A highly complex system developed from this starting point exists in the middle and late vedic period, which is documented in the texts of the Yajurveda, the Brāhmaṇas, and finally the ritual Sūtras, which emerged in the following centuries. The present article deals with the Śrauta ritual system, the rituals “belonging to the sacred revelation,” with which Yajurveda, Brāhmaṇas, and Śrautasūtras are concerned. In postvedic times, the texts of the vedic canon were categorized as Śruti (sacred revelation) – regarded as revealed literature beheld by seers – and derived from this is the adjective Śrauta “belonging to the sacred revelation.” Not a part of Śruti is the system of domestic rituals, mainly life-cycle rituals and cyclical sacrifices (e.g. new- and full-moon sacrifices) that are dealt with in separate texts, the Gṛhyasūtras. Especially the enactment of the extremely elaborate Śrauta rituals was limited to the elite of vedic society. They were promoted by a patron (yajamāna “the one who sacrifices for himself”). The performance of the ritual acts, which were accompanied by recitations and chants, was in the hands of religious specialists.
The vedic term for the rituals is yajña, which has the meaning of “veneration” in the oldest linguistic strata. It is a primary nominal derivation of the Sanskrit root yaj- “to venerate,” “to venerate [through sacrifices],” and also “perform a ritual.” In later vedic texts, yajña is generally understood as “sacrifice.” This meaning suggests, for instance, the explanation of yajña that is given in the Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra 1.2.2: “[yajña consists of sacrificial] substance, deity, and relinquishing.” Crucial and possibly distinctive elements of yajña are thus the substance that is offered, the deity who receives it, and the ritual relinquishment of this substance (tyāga). Tyāga, which also means “departing, giving up, renunciation,” also designates a formula that is recited by the ritual patron while the priest sacrifices the substance into the fire. The formula names the deity who receives the oblation, for example, “This is for Agni, not for me.” In the classical philosophy of Mimāṃsā, the interpretation of tyāga is discussed probably under the influence of its interpretation in the Bhagavadgītā : is it simply the formal sacrifice, the giving away of the concrete sacrificial substance, or does it mean the renunciation of the “fruit of the sacrifice” by the ritual patron, the desired result of the ritual?
The ancient Indian explanation of yajña coincides with the classical explanation of “sacrifice” in comparative religious studies (going back to Mauss & Hubert, 1899), in which the element of relinquishment and/or destruction of the sacrificial substance is of utmost importance. But the Śrauta yajñas represent complex rituals that include a multitude of processes and acts that have no connection with “sacrifice.” So the term “ritual” would be more appropriate than “sacrifice.” But vedic ritual specialists have regarded sacrificial action as a central and distinctive element of their rituals, which is also expressed by way of classifying the rituals according to the kind of sacrificial substance (see below). So it is nonetheless justified to translate yajña as “sacrifice.” Sacrifice is then – in a broader meaning – to be understood as a complex of ritual processes and action in which the acts of ritual relinquishment of material objects take a central position.
A great part of Śrauta ritual acts is devoted to the procurement of well-being and fertility of the ritual patron and his joined family in this life and the hereafter. But special demands such as to conquer an enemy or to attain an elevated social position are ritual topics as well.
The basis of the concept of yajña is a so-called magical worldview (see e.g. Witzel, 1972; Schayer, 1925; Oldenberg, 1919) that can be detected even in the time of the Ṛgveda but later becomes dominant. Through the rituals, the gods can be forced to comply with the demands of the ritual patrons. The painstakingly exact exertion of the complicated ritual acts is of crucial importance for their success and postulated efficacy. Sacrifices have a macrocosmic dimension insofar as the continuation of the cosmic process (i.e. sunrise, sunset, annual cycles, cycles of fertility) too depends on their regular and rule-complying performance. The most prominent gods of the Ṛgveda – such as Agni, god of fire, Soma, deified form of the sacrificial drink soma, and above all the warrior god Indra – are still of importance, that is, they are included in the sacrifices. But in addition to Indra, who figures most prominently in many rituals, a new deity appears, the creator god Prajāpati, who is now connected to the great rituals, too. Various and partly even contradictory ideas or levels of ritual interpretation do exist in the texts side-by-side, which testifies to the gradual development of the Śrauta ritual system (see below).
The decline of vedic culture and religion began around 500 BCE and was further enhanced by the appearance and increasing influence of Buddhism. The tradition never did completely disappear, however, and there were revivals up to recent times. Even today, Śrauta rituals are occasionally performed (see below).
Textual Basis
The basis for research and for the tradition of the vedic ritual system is a voluminous textual corpus, the so-called vedic canon, the oldest surviving literature of India, written in an archaic form of Sanskrit.We are not able to delimit the time of its composition exactly or even present absolute dates for the various texts. The range of time can roughly be estimated at 1700 to 500 BCE: 1700 marks the beginnings of the Ṛgveda, and 500 approximately the time of codification of the language by the grammarian Pāṇini, and thus the transit from vedic to classical Sanskrit. The vedic texts have been orally authored in various “branches” of tradition (śākhā), which may also be described as “priestly schools” and have been handed down up to modern times almost without textual changes.
A detailed overview of the vedic texts is found in J. Gonda (1975) for Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas as well as (1977) for ritual Sūtras. In these volumes, problems of dating the texts are also discussed. An overview of the history of origins of the vedic canon and the social and political context of his development is found in M. Witzel (1997).
Vedic texts are ritual literature. They consist of liturgical material that is recited or chanted during the ritual, but also include material about the ritual, that is, rules for its performance, priestly interpretation, explication, and mystical speculation.
First, I shall consider the material that may be classified as liturgical in the strict sense:
The Ṛgvedasaṃhitā is a collection of verses (ṛc) that are grouped into hymns (sūkta) addressed to various deities. The verses are recited by the priest called hotṛ or his assistants during the ritual. However, not complete hymns are recited, but single or several verses, even from different hymns. An example for the complex interaction of the hotṛ with other priests is given below. The recitations of the hotṛ and his assistants during soma rituals are called Śāstra.
The Sāmaveda is a collection of chants (sāman), the verses of which are parallel to texts from the Ṛgveda. They are chanted by the udgātṛ priest and his assistants during the soma rituals (see below). The technical designation of such ritual chants is Stotra. Each Stotra corresponds with a Śāstra, a recitation by the abovementioned hotṛ.
The Yajurveda includes liturgical as well as interpretative material: mainly, the sacrificial formulas (yajus) are handed down here and collected according to rituals (roughly speaking) in the order and succession of their application in the ritual. With these formulas the adhvaryu accompanies his activity. He is the priest who, together with his assistants, performs the sacrificial acts proper, such as libations (āhuti). The Saṃhitās of the so-called Black Yajurveda additionally include Brāhmaṇa-like sections: the collection of sacrificial formulas is frequently followed by an explanation of when, and in connection with which ritual act, the respective formula is to be recited. Sometimes the meaning and purpose of the ritual elements or even the whole ritual are discussed. To legitimize rituals or singular activities, short, stereotypical “mythological” stories attribute their first enactment or “discovery” to gods.
The fourth Veda is the Atharvaveda, which originally was not connected to the Śrauta ritual system. The major part of this collection is related to the function of a family priest, especially of a king (purohita). Some verses are used by the brāhmaṇa priest, however, who is one of the major priests officiating in Śrauta rituals (on his function, see below).
The next layer of ritual literature consists of the Brāhmaṇas. Their self-declared purpose is the discussion of the connection between the ritual action and the words accompanying it, that is, the verbal part of the ritual (all verbal utterings, mainly ṛc, sāman, and yajus, are termed as mantras according to the Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra 1.3.1). The later exegetical tradition classifies the content of the Brāhmaṇas or of Brāhmaṇa-like texts, that is explanatory prose sections of the Black Yajurveda, in a twofold way: first, as the description of the ritual procedure (vidhi), and secondly, by its interpretation (arthavāda; see Malamoud, 1998, 28–34). The Brāhmaṇas do not offer a complete, chronological description of the complex ritual procedures but take the knowledge of the rituals for granted. Rather, a rationale and interpretation of the sacrificial rituals resting on the “magical” worldview is attempted: based on a common characteristic, elements of the ritual (actions, utensils, sacrificial substances, mantras, etc.) are connected to or identified with micro- or macrocosmic phenomena, concepts, or objects, as is the case, for example, in the following passage of the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa:
"[The adhvaryu priest] then draws 17 cups of soma, and [the neṣṭṛ priest]17 cups of surā [= beer], for to Prajāpati belong these to [saps of] plants, to wit the soma and the surā; and of these two the soma is truth, prosperity, light; and the surā untruth, misery, darkness. Both these [saps of] plants he thereby wins; for he who offers the vājapeya wins everything there, since he wins Prajāpati and Prajāpati indeed is everything there" (ŚBr. 5.1.2.10; trans. Eggeling, 1996, 8).
Frequently short mythological narratives are embedded in the ritualistic context to legitimize rituals, single actions, or rules, or to “historically” justify them – as in the commentary sections of the Black Yajurveda. These explanations of the ancient ritual specialists are a sort of “standardized hermeneutics” of the Śrauta system, not to say of vedic culture. They are indispensable for the semantic analysis of the ritual elements in a modern theoretical sense (for a discussion of the symbol concept of the vedic ritualists, see Parpola, 1979; on the so-called identifications of the Brāhmaṇa texts, see Wezler, 1996).
The Āraṇyakas, another group of texts, form a part of the Brāhmaṇas. The interpretation of the sacrificial rituals is deepened by the discussion of their macrocosmic dimension. Directly embedded into Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas or following them are the early Upaniṣads, the last text group of the vedic literature that is regarded as “revealed” in the philosophical schools of Vedānta and Mimāṃsā. In addition to the cosmic dimension of the sacrifices, human beings are now included in ritualistic speculation. Sacrifices are related to psychophysical concepts and functions of the human being, they are being interiorized, and as their highest form sometimes the purely mental performance is propagated. As is sometimes already mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa texts, the secret knowledge of the micro- and macrocosmic dimension of the rituals is of crucial importance for their efficacy, and this knowledge alone may be a substitute for the performance of the ritual.
The vedic texts that complete our knowledge mainly about the ritual processes are the Kalpasūtras, ritual guidelines, consisting mainly of four groups: Śrautasūtras, guidelines of the rituals belonging to the sacred revelation; Gṛhyasūtras, guidelines of domestic rituals; Dharmasūtras, guidelines of the basic religious order ( dharmaśāstra ); and Śulvasūtras, guidelines for measuring and construction of ritual enclosures. To get an idea of the processes in Śrauta sacrificial rituals, the Śrautasūtras are of special interest. They include detailed instructions for the respective officiants of how the extensive sacrifices discussed in the Brāhmaṇas and Yajurveda Saṃhitās are to be performed: the Śrautasūtras of the rgvedic tradition mainly include instructions for the hotṛ, those belonging to the Sāmaveda for the udgātṛ, and the ones belonging to the Yajurveda for the adhvaryu. For a comprehensive idea of the extremely complex processes, one needs to consult the respective chapters from the Sūtras of all three Vedas and put the various courses of action together. It is very difficult to reconstruct, on the basis of these instructions, what actually took place at the sacrificial site, for the mode of description is not chronological but structured and organized according to abstract principles. Beyond this the texts are authored by specialists for specialists who took knowledge of the ritual processes for granted.
It is impossible to reconstruct the ritual processes only by utilizing the Sūtra texts. One may assume here, too, that in the ritual praxis, the oral tradition, training, and handing down of practical knowledge by a teacher played an important role.
But there are texts of a considerably later period that were of crucial importance for the initial research on the rituals, namely, the ritual Paddhatis (“Outlines”) and Prayogas (“Handbooks”). These are generally part of the tradition of certain Śrautasūtras, authored by the various priestly schools (śākhās). These texts deal with what takes place at the sacrificial site chronologically. There are handbooks for singular priests but also those which deal with the tasks of groups of priests, and some describe only certain phases of a ritual.
History of Research
Scholarly literature concerned with Śrauta ritual is copious: there are studies of single rituals, studies of details and isolated aspects of the rituals, or studies of “vedic” or Śrauta ritual in general, not to mention editions and/or translations of ritual texts. Out of this bulk only a small selection can be mentioned here.The monographic studies of single rituals are of special interest. The earliest works are from the pioneering phase of vedic studies, including A. Hillebrandt (1879) on the darśapūrṇamāsa, the new- and full-moon sacrifice; J. Schwab (1886) on paśubandha, the animal sacrifice; A. Weber (1893) on the rājasūya, the royal consecration; and W. Caland (1893) on piṇḍapitṛyajña, the offerings to the ancestors. More recent studies are, for example, H. Krick (1982) on the agnyādheya (the establishing of sacrificial fires), F. Staal (1983) on the atirātrāgnicayana (see below), S. Einoo (1988) on the cāturmāsya (the seasonal sacrifices), M. Kolhatkar (1998) on the sautrāmaṇī (see below), and H. Teshima (2008) on the preliminary rites of the aśvamedha (the horse sacrifice). K. Steiner (2004) mainly consists of translations of texts about the vājapeya ritual. An edition of a text concerned with the agnyādheya is M. Sparreboom (1989). An introduction, which is still very useful, is given by A. Hillebrandt (1897), in which general features of the rituals as well as single rituals (of both Śrauta and Gṛhya type) are described. For the most important rituals (the basic forms of haviryajña and somayajña, see below), see also the Śrautakośa (Encyclopaedia of Vedic Sacrificial Ritual) edited by R.N. Dandekar and C.K. Kashikar between 1958 and 1994. In the so-called Sanskrit section of this work, relevant text sections of Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Śautasūtras pertaining to these rituals are collected.
Most of the monographs on single rituals are largely descriptive presentations of the ritual activities according to the Brāhmaṇas, Śrautasūtras, and Yajurveda Saṃhitās often connected with investigations of philological, cultural, historical, and other details. This is a great task in itself because the vedic texts present a lot of difficulties: many of them are not translated in a scholarly satisfying way or not translated at all into Western languages. Consequently these studies do not try to analyze or interpret the rituals in the broader context of ritual studies. Exceptions are the works by J.C. Heesterman (1957) and H. Krick (1982). Special cases are presented by H.W. Bodewitz (1973, 1976, and 1990) and J.E.M. Houben (1991), who investigate specific rituals in the light of a specific ancient interpretation.
Studies of a general character without focusing too much on specific rituals are, for example, S. Lévi (1898), M. Biardeau & C. Malamoud (1976), C. Malamoud (1989, 2005), F. Staal (1989, 1990), B.K. Smith (1989), and J.C. Heesterman (1993).
The major part of M. Biardeau & C. Malamoud’s Le sacrifice dans l’ Hindouisme (1976, 7–154) is written by M. Biardeau. Of special interest here is the chapter on sacrifice in the context of the Brahmanical orthodoxy (14–57), where M. Biardeau investigates the topics of sacrifice as a cosmogonic principle (based on an analysis of the famous puruṣa hymn [Puruṣasūkta; ṚV. 10.90]), its sociocosmic implications, and the significance of sacrifice in an individual’s life. The last part of the book (155–204) basically on the conceptualization of the dakṣiṇā, the “salary” of the priests in a vedic ritual, is written by C. Malamoud.
C. Malamoud (1989) wrote a collection of essays on ancient Indian culture and thought mainly drawing from the vedic texts, and a part of the articles focuses on certain aspects of Śrauta ritual. Thought, as represented in these texts, is organized around the theme of sacrifice, which is, as C. Malamoud puts it “an explanatory scheme (causally and analogically) not only for the world order, but also for all human actions and aspirations” (1998, 2).
B.K. Smith (1989) investigates the underlying basic principles of vedic domestic and Śrauta ritual in the broader context of the development of Hinduism. Starting from a deconstruction of some extant definitions of Hinduism, B.K. Smith argues that “legitimizing reference to the authority of the Veda” (14) is the constitutive base of Hinduism. He also critically reviews the theories of J.C. Heesterman (see below) and F. Staal (see below).
C. Malamoud (2005) is a collection of various studies on ritual, myth, and cosmogony. Essentially the author concentrates on the interrelation between vedic ritual and myth, the relationship seen as rival (see 43–58). He analyzes the scenic elements of the Śrauta rituals and examines the conditions under which these sacrificial dramas can be seen as “representation.” He also applies psychoanalytical ideas.
Since the 19th century, nearly all theorists of socioreligious studies and anthropology have been working on the fields of sacrifice or ritual in more or less detail. It is impossible to consider and discuss all the diverging approaches presented by numerous scholars and scientists, nor is it possible to give a summary of the discourse about ritual. A detailed and critical survey about so-called theories of sacrifice is given by J. Drexler (1993); for a short summary see, for example, T. Böhm (1998); detailed studies on ritual theories include C. Bell (1992) and J. Kreinath (2006); for short summaries, see, for example, B. Lang (1998) and B. Gladigow (1998); methodological criticism is in C. Bell (1987), C. Humphrey & J. Laidlaw (1994, 64–87), and F. Staal (1996); for a comprehensive bibliography, see J. Kreinath (2007).
The pioneers of “modern” studies in sacrifice and ritual, however, were H. Hubert & M. Mauss with their classic article “Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice” published in 1899. In a time dominated by evolutionist approaches in this field, H. Hubert & M. Mauss were the first social scientists who engaged in analyzing specific sacrificial rituals regarding their process-oriented structure, symbolism, and functions, also taking into account the intentions of the performers. According to H. Hubert & M. Mauss, the ritual process is basically a transfer, a transition of the sacrificial matter from the profane to the sacral sphere. By this transfer the religious condition of the ritual patron is changed. H. Hubert & M. Mauss are of special interest in the present context, because they were the first social scientists who utilized Śrauta rituals extensively for establishing a general theory on sacrificial rituals. Their main sources were the paśubandha according to J. Schwab (1886), but they included the darśapūrṇamāsa according to A. Hillebrandt (1879) as well. They were influenced by S. Lévi’s classic La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Brahmanas (1898). On the one hand, their theory is considered obsolete nowadays because it focuses too exclusively on the fact of the sacrificial matter being destroyed or killed and above all because it is based on the Durkheimian dichotomy of profane versus sacral. On the other hand, it still provides a good starting point from which adequate theoretical implications of ritual and its interpretation can be derived.
A.B. Keith (1925) is the first Indologist who relatively broadly discusses the then-current theories for interpretation of sacrificial rituals, though he does not apply them to specific rituals.
The first Indologist to introduce a sociological and structuralist perspective in the investigation of a specific Śrauta ritual was J.C. Heesterman (1957) in his book about the rājasūya ritual. Heesterman was inspired by H. Hubert & M. Mauss and by another classic of M. Mauss, namely the Essai sur le don (1924). Starting from the study of the rājasūya, J.C. Heesterman in a series of articles and finally in a monograph (1993) developed a model in which he tried to explain the “classical” ritual system presented in the Śrauta texts as originating from “preclassical” structures. These preclassical structures according to J.C. Heesterman are characterized by two rival sacrificial parties engaging in real lethal combats/contests. The basic structural principle would be violent “exchange” between these two parties. The martial symbolism, being very prominent in the Śrauta texts, is explained by J.C. Heesterman as the euphemized remainder of those real sacrificial combats that he projects back into “die Welt einer heroischen Epoche“ (Heesterman, 1982, 16). His explanation of the origin of vedic sacrifice was not accepted because of its lack of histo-ricity: the preclassical structures postulated by J.C. Heesterman cannot be located historically or textually (see e.g. Minkowski, 1996, 343). It is undisputed of course that rituals must have gone through a long period of development until they appeared in the “classical” form of the Śrauta texts. But earlier stages can only occasionally be located in the texts, or can be reconstructed with difficulty. Furthermore, in J.C. Heesterman’s studies the delimitations between “real life,” the ritual as the “reconstruction and re-enactment of reality,” and myth become blurred. Also not considered is the fact that antagonistic elements in the broad sense of the term (e.g. competitions, ritualized fights), and also the symbolism of war and death, are widespread as parts of rituals in many cultures. Thus, such ritual elements cannot be utilized as arguments for the postulated “preclassical phase” (see Oberlies, 1998, 269–270). Rather, it is probable that the vedic rituals included such elements even in earlier developmental stages – perhaps as the ritual reenactment of reality. So in spite of J.C. Heesterman’s many correct observations and brilliant interpretations of details, his approach to Śrauta ritual in general was accepted only with reservations (for a critical assessment, see also Smith, 1989, 40–46). H. Krick (1982) in her thorough investigation of the agnyādheya ritual follows J.C. Heesterman’s conception of classical/preclassical, but does not give up the connection with philological and historical facts, in which lies the great value of H. Krick’s work.
Much discussion arose surrounding the works of F. Staal: he started with a detailed documentation and investigation of the agnicayana ritual performed in 1975 by Nambūtiri Brahmans in Kerala, which was published in 1983 in two large volumes entitled Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar. Finally, F. Staal radically rejected all existing interpretative approaches to ritual because of the “meaninglessness of ritual” postulated most effectively in Rules without Meaning (1989), which was widely received. His famous work Agni (alongside with the film by Robert Gardner, 1976) is probably the only description of a Śrauta ritual being adopted broadly outside the limited circle of Veda scholars. The documentation and investigation of such performances for their own sake is valuable and necessary (see below). Regarding the language of the mantras and the symbolism of the other elements, the Śrauta rituals performed today are extremely anachronistic. They have survived as pure activity detached from their sociocultural context. This might be one of the reasons that inspired F. Staal’s perception of the ritual’s meaninglessness and his postulate that ritual has nothing to do with religion and society (see e.g. Staal, 1996, 123). F. Staal utilized the results derived from the special case of the Nambūtiri agnicayana for establishing a new ritual theory, which radically challenged all former approaches. Particularly his insistence that ritual acts are meaningless has caused much discussion (see e.g. Smith, 1989, 38–46, 222f.; Scharfe, 1990; Grapard, 1991; Mack, 1991; Strenski, 1991; Witzel, 1992; see also Staal’s debate with his critics 1991 and 1993; on “the meaninglessness of mantras,” see also his most recent publication Staal, 2008, 191) and was indeed seminal for the most important work on ritual theory published during the last years, namely, C. Humphrey & J. Laidlaw’s The Archetypal Actions of Ritual (1994), a view corroborated by recent trend (see below).
Despite the fact that there were attempts at mutual exchange, an interface between philology-centered Śrauta studies and theory-oriented fields of socioreligious studies and anthropology has not been established so far (see also Staal, 2008, 224–228). For a new approach to the investigation of Śrauta ritual, it seems appropriate to start again, like in the pioneering phase of Śrauta studies, from analyses of specific rituals and to combine philological with a socioreligious or anthropological methods.
The Śrauta Ritual System
Characteristics of Śrauta Rituals
The Śrauta rituals take place at sacrificial enclosures that are measured, prepared, and built according to exact rules laid down in the abovementioned Śulvasūtras (on the geometry of vedic rituals, see Seidenberg, 1983), the necessary elements varying according to the various rituals. The basic, most simple form of a sacrificial enclosure is shown on the left side of the diagram below (1–6). Basically at least three fireplaces are necessary (āhavanīya, gārhapatya, dakṣiṇa), whose initial setting up is an elaborate ritual itself (see below). The square āhavanīya fireplace (5) serves as the sacrificial fire proper in which the oblations are usually sacrificed. By this they are handed over to the gods. The half-moon-shaped dakṣina (southern) fire (3) is meant for ancestral sacrifices since the south is connected with the deceased. On the gārhapatya (householder) fire (2), the offerings are prepared. One more element of the sacrificial site in its basic form is the vedi (4), an excavated piece of ground generally strewn with kuśa grass. It serves as a seat of the invited gods, and the sacrificial food is placed on it as well. Usually the vedi is of narrow shape in the middle, which is why the female waist is often compared to it. Around these structures a hut (prāgvaṃśamaṇḍapa [6]) is built. The sacrificer’s wife most of the time stays in the patnῑśālā “wife’s hall” (1), a separate part of the prāgvaṃśa.For some rituals, especially for soma rituals, the basic site has to be considerably expanded (for the various types of ritual enclosures, see e.g. Ranade, 2006, 333–348). East of the original enclosure, where the introductory part of the ritual takes place, a new ritual enclosure has to be measured out, the mahāvedi (7), with two huts in which the soma extraction takes place (havirdhānamaṇḍapa [9]) and where some of the priests sit (sadas, 8). The original sacrificial fire (āhavanīya) is transferred to the mahāvedi, where some additional fireplaces are set up too. The new āhavanīya fire (11) is placed on a square mound of earth (uttaravedi [10]). East of the uttaravedi, the sacrificial post (yūpa [12]) is erected, to which the sacrificial animals are tied.
Fig. 1: The ritual enclosure. (1) patnῑśālā
(2) gārhapatya
(3) dakṣināgni
(4) vedi
(5) āhavanīya
(6) prāgvaṃśamaṇḍapa
(7) mahāvedi
(8) sadas
(9) havirdhānamaṇḍapa
(10) uttaravedi
(11) new āhavanīya
(12) yūpa
Not only milk, clarified butter, and varieties of cake and of cereal mush, but also portions of meat serve as sacrificial oblations. The most exclusive offering is the sacral drink soma, extracted from certain plants whose original botanical identity still is a matter of discussion, although most scholars tend to favor ephedra (according to Falk, 1989, and others; Nyberg, 1995, agrees; for a different view, see Stuhrmann, 2006).
Apart from this, a variant number of officiants is necessary. The most important priests (mahaṛtvij) are the abovementioned hotṛ, adhvaryu, udgātṛ, and brāhmaṇa. The brāhmaṇa has to be familiar with the three vedic branches (Ṛgveda, Sāmaveda, and Yajurveda). He has to supervise the whole procedure, intervene if mistakes happen, and conduct expiations (prāyaścitti; on mishaps in vedic rituals, see Michaels, 2007, 121–132). In some rituals the brāhmaṇa has additional important tasks (for details on the particular position of the brāhmaṇa, see Bodewitz, 1983). The rituals are performed on behalf of a patron (yajamāna, usually translated as “sacrificer”), which means that the desired result of the ritual will not go to the priests, or the general public, but to him. The patron has to belong to the three upper classes (caste); some rituals are exclusively meant for Brahmans, some for kings. Also, a ritual patron must be initiated and married. The initiation ritual, during which a young man is being invested with the sacred thread, is a life-cycle ritual ( saṃskāra ) being part of the domestic rituals of the Gṛhyasūtras. The patron and his wife/wives take part in the ritual, but in general they are given only modest roles in the performance (e.g. the formal sacrifice tyāga mentioned above). In connection with the ritual, they have to observe various rules, too, such as sexual abstinence and limitations in talking and eating.
Integral to rituals is the so-called dakṣiṇā, a more or less substantial gift given to the priests in the course or end of the ritual by the patron. In vedic theology this gift is not considered as payment to the priests but is conceptualized as being essential to the efficacy of the ritual. According to Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 1.2.2.1 (Kāṇvīya recension), the dakṣiṇā is an offering sacrificed to the priest, by which the sacrificial ritual as a whole is strengthened and rendered complete. Or, as Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 1.9.3.1 puts it, “That sacrifice . . . goes forth towards the world of the gods: after it follows the dakṣiṇā . . . and holding on to the dakṣiṇā the sacrificer” The Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā 1.11.17 puts it more succinctly: “It is by the dakṣiṇā that the sacrificer reaches the world of heaven.” Inspired by M. Mauss (1923–1924), J.C. Heesterman summarizes his analysis of the concept of the dakṣiṇā as follows:
"Rather than a salary the dakṣiṇā is to be considered as a gift ... Like the gift in general the dakṣiṇā establishes, or is expressive of, a bond between the giver and the recipient; and it produces rich returns for the giver ... The force of the bond between the giver and the recipients can be best illustrated by the fact that the sacrificer when distributing the dakṣiṇās is considered to give himself: for these parts of himself the dakṣiṇās are substituted" (Heesterman, 1959, 242–243).
In his detailed study on the concept of the dakṣiṇā, C. Malamoud further analyzes the complex relation between sacrificer and priest:
"La dakṣiṇā est ce par quoi le sacrifiant achète les services du prêtre es ce par quoi il se rachète de lui. C’est la rémunération qui établit à la fois ce contact et cette distance. La dakṣiṇā que verse le sacrifiant au ṛtvij se fonde sur la confiance, śraddhā, qu’il a en lui. Mais la réciproque est aussi vraie: c’est parce qu’ il le paie qu’ il a confiance en lui; et de deux manières: le sacrifiant sait que le ṛtvij ayant été rémunéré . . . sera tenu de faire son travail, il sait aussi que de cette façon il est lui-même libre à l’égard du ṛtvij" (Malamoud, 1976, 197).
This kind of remuneration (gold, payment in kind, clothing, animals, etc.) is adapted to each ritual context.
The Major Types of Oblations
All oblations are offered, if not prescribed otherwise, into the āhavanīya fire, following a pattern that is valid for all rituals. However, regarding the accompanying actions and the number of priests participating, there are two major types of oblations (homa; see KātŚS. 1.2.6.7). The yajati type (the term literally means “he venerates by sacrifice” from the root yaj-), offered while standing, consists of a complex sequence of actions with four priests participating. The sacrifice proper, performed by the adhvaryu priest, takes place only after a ritualized conversation among all officiants participating. First of all, two recitations by the hotṛ take place, the so-called puronuvakyā, the invitation of the deity to whom the oblation is dedicated, and the yajyā, a “veneration through verbal offerings.” The yajyā recitation ends with the call of “May [the fire] carry,” the request that the adhvaryu should offer the oblation into the fire. In this type, the recitation by the hotṛ priest is the “sacrifice,” that is, the “veneration” proper. This complex interaction is documented in the film Atha vājapeyaḥ somayāgaḥ on the vājapeya ritual produced by J.A.B. van Buitenen in 1955.More simple is the juhoti type (the term means literally “he puts/throws into the fire,” of the root hu- “to put into the fire, to sacrifice”). Here, the adhvaryu offers the oblation while sitting, bending his right knee, without preliminaries, only accompanied by the call svāhā.Classification of the Śrauta Rituals
There are various models according to which the Śrautasūtras classify the rituals. They qualify regularly recurrent (nitya) rituals, those connected with a certain occasion (naimittika), and those motivated by certain wishes or desires (kāmya). Regularly recurrent are, for instance, the daily fire oblation or the new- and full-moon sacrifice and other rituals that become compulsory after a patron has started performing Śrauta rituals through the solemn “setting up of the fires” (agnyādheya; for a detailed study of this ritual, see Krick, 1982). A “certain occasion,” for instance, would be the birth of a son. Concrete wishes may be male offspring or the securing of a superior social position.A more categorical qualification is that between prakṛti and vikṛti rituals. Prakṛti “paradigm, prototype, model” is the primary form of a ritual in which all subordinate rites are prescribed by the texts while vikṛtis are modifications of the former; thus, the new-moon and full-moon sacrifice is the prakṛti of all vegetarian sacrifices (iṣṭi), and of the animal sacrifice to the goods Agni and Soma, which in turn serves as the paradigm of all the animal sacrifices. The agniṣṭoma serves as a paradigm of the soma rituals. Paradigms and their modifications can differ, for example regarding the mantras, the kind of sacrificial offering, the material of utensils, or the deities addressed (see e.g. some modifications of the new- and full-moon sacrifice mentioned in ĀpŚS. 3.10–17; see also 4.10.1). Only those sacrifices which serve as a paradigm are treated in detail in the texts. For the modified rituals, only those points where they differ from their model are described in detail. The rest is either tacitly understood or briefly indicated (see Ikari & Arnold, 1983, 479). So, for example, for the vājapeya ritual, a secondary modification of the agniṣṭoma, only the special features of the ritual are treated in the respective sections of the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, and Sūtras covering few sections of the respective texts, for example, sections 1–7 of chapter 18 of the Āpastambaśrautasūtra, whereas the agniṣṭoma comprises as many as the complete chapters 10–13 of the same text. The direct model of the vājapeya is the ṣoḍaśin soma ritual, which in turn is a vikṛti of the agniṣṭoma. Thus there are rituals that are only prakṛti (as the agniṣṭoma) and others that are vikṛti and prakṛti as well (as the ṣoḍaśin; see Sreekrishna Sarma, 1983, 163). The paradigms are modules that usually are combined with one another, too (see below).
A third differentiation is based on the kind of the sacrificial substance. On the one hand, there are the haviryajñasaṃsthā, “basic forms of a sacrifice of sacrificial substance,” to which vegetarian as well as nonvegetarian – and, interestingly, the only sacrifice including alcoholic sacrificial substance – belong. On the other hand, strictly separated from these are the “basic forms of the soma sacrifice” (somayajñasaṃsthā).
The Most Important Śrauta Rituals
• agnyādheya “the setting up of the fires” (see Krick, 1982) is the precondition for the performance of other Śrauta rituals. Embedded in a complex ritual lasting several days, three or more sacred fires are prepared. Among other things, a ritual game of dice takes place (see also Falk, 1986, esp. 134–163).• agnihotra (see Bodewitz, 1976, 1973) is a milk oblation that has to be offered twice daily. The performance of this ritual is the epitome of an “orthoprax” lifestyle in the sense of Brahmanic religion.
• darśapūrṇamāsas (see Hillebrandt, 1879) are the new-moon, respectively the full-moon sacrifices to be performed every fortnight. Central is the sacrifice of two cakes made of rice or barley flour as well as an offering of clarified butter.
• piṇḍapitṛyajña (see Caland, 1893) is a sacrifice of rice balls for the ancestors, performed on the new-moon day. Here, as always in connection with ancestor rituals, various rules have to be followed that make the opposition of the world of the living and that of the dead visible, for example, the sacrificial thread is worn over the right, not the left, shoulder. The offering takes place at the southern fire, not the regular sacrificial fire.
• āgrayaṇa, the sacrifice of the first-harvested fruits of the field, which is offered up to three times a year (barley in spring, rice or millet during or after the monsoon in autumn, bamboo seeds in summer).
• cāturmāsya (see Einoo, 1998) are tertiary sacrifices performed at the beginning of the three annual seasons. Common to all three rituals are vegetarian oblations to five deities. In spring, the vaiśvadeva ritual takes place; its basic structure is the blueprint for the other tertiary rituals as well. The second cāturmāsya, the varuṇapraghāsa, is performed during the rainy season. This ritual has remarkable characteristics: a he-goat and a ram modeled from barley dough, which are sacrificed in the end, play an important role. Also remarkable is the role of the patron’s wife, who is to be interrogated by a priest in the course of the ritual. He interrogates her regarding the number of lovers she has besides her husband. The lovers named are left by the priest to the discretion of the god Varuṇa, the major deity of this ritual, for punishment. The purpose of this interrogation is to charge the ritual sphere with feminine, sexual energy, and thus fertility (Jamison, 1996). In autumn/winter, the sākamedha is performed in which an extensive ancestor ritual is embedded too. Another specialty is the compensation of the feared ambivalent god Rudra with sacrificial cakes, which are not – as usual – offered into the fire, but thrown on a mole hill or attached to a tree, stump, or a termite hill.
• paśubandha (for all details see Schwab, 1886) is the paradigm and most simple form of animal sacrifice in which one he-goat is offered. There are more elaborate forms as well, which include the sacrifice of cows, sheep, and other animals, sometimes in great number. Animal sacrifices are also part of the soma rituals (see below). One of the first ritual acts is the preparation of a sacrificial post (yūpa) cut from a tree trunk. Later, it will serve to tie the sacrificial animals to it. After elaborate ceremonies, the animals are suffocated or strangled by a special officiant, the śamitṛ “pacifier.” The authors of the vedic texts present the act of killing as “pacification,” usually referring to it by various euphemisms, the most frequently used expression for “put to death” being the root saṃ + jñapay- “cause to agree [in its death].” After the death of the animal, a number of ritual acts are performed that – in the eyes of the ancient ritualists – effect the restoration to life of the animal (on a discussion of these rites, see Malamoud, 1998, 169–180). One rite, for example, is performed by the wife of the ritual patron (for a discussion of her role, see Jamison, 1996, 146–149): she pours water on the legs and on the orifices of the dead body, thus causing the vital breaths to reenter the animal and effecting its resurrection. This act is conceptualized by the vedic authors as a rebirth of the victim from the patron’s wife. Now the body is divided up into portions whose number varies, according to various vedic sources. According to C. Malamoud (1998, 170), the authors of vedic treatises on sacrifice seem to be “especially preoccupied with how best to proceed so that the parts resulting from the division of the body might reconstitute themselves so as to form a living whole.” According to an explanation given in the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 3.8.4.1, there are 33 offerings of meat portions, which represent the ten fingers, ten toes, and ten vital breaths (prāṇa), as well as exhaling, inhaling, and through-breathing being the constitutive elements of human body. Thus the number of meat offerings represents a living man, and, furthermore, the animal victim is conceptualized as a substitute for the ritual patron. The most important sacrificial meat portion is the peritoneum (vapā), but various other parts of the meat are considered fit for sacrificing. Blood, stomach, and excrements are taken – as the share for demons – to a pit outside of the sacrificial enclosure. Every animal sacrifice includes a variable number of vegetarian offerings as well.
• sautrāmaṇī (see Kolhatkar, 1999) is a ritual in which beer (surā) and broth play a central role as ritual substances. Here, too, various paradigms (vegetarian sacrifice, animal sacrifice) are combined. Alcohol is used only restrictively in the vedic ritual system.
• soma rituals (see Caland & Henry, 1906–1907): central to these rituals is the preparation and offering of the sacred drink soma to various gods. The basic form of soma ritual, which also includes elaborate vegetarian and animal sacrifices, is the agniṣṭoma (see below). Agnicayana (see Staal, 1983; for an interpretation in the context of the development of the karman doctrine, see Tull, 1989, esp. 72–102) is a modified form of the basic soma ritual, which includes the arrangement of a bird-shaped altar made of bricks in five layers. Special cases also based on the soma paradigm are the aśvamedha (the horse sacrifice; see Dumont, 1927; for an interpretation of specific aspects, see Krick, 1972) and rājasūya (the royal consecration; see Heesterman, 1957). These two highly complex rituals are reserved for kings.
• pravargya (see van Buitenen, 1968; Houben, 1991) is a ritual usually performed not independently but in the context of soma sacrifices. Central in the ritual is a clay pot, which is termed mahāvīra, “great hero/man.” This pot is heated and then filled with clarified butter and milk from cows and goats, which results in spectacular evaporation of steam (see also below). Next, various ritual utensils are displayed resembling a human form on a rack made of basket work serving as a throne (āsandī). This symbolizes the new body of the ritual patron, which has been created by the ritual.
The Soma Rituals, Especially the Vājapeya
Soma sacrifices, which need at least 16 officiants, are the most complex rituals in the Śrauta system. Below, I will elaborate on the basic features of the soma rituals and will explain the modular-design principle of the Śrauta system as exemplified in the case of the vājapeya ritual. The vājapeya is one of the abovementioned so-called “basic forms of the soma sacrifice” but includes several special features that go far beyond the basic model. In most Śrautasūtras, the following rituals are enumerated as “basic forms of the soma sacrifice”: agniṣṭoma, atyagniṣṭoma, ukthya, ṣodaśin, vājapeya, atirātra, and aptoryāma (see e.g. BauŚS. 24.4; KātŚS. 10.9.27).The vājapeya ritual is dealt with more or less extensively in the Yajurvedasaṃhitā, in the Brāhmaṇas of the yajurvedic and samavedic tradition, and in almost all Śrautasūtras of the Yajurveda. The oldest and most important sources are the Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā 1.11.1–10, Kāṭhakasaṃhitā 13.14, and 14.1–10, Taittirīyasaṃhitā 1.7.7–12, and Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa 1.3.2.-9 (see Steiner, 2004; for a detailed interpretation of the ritual, see Steiner, forthcoming).
All soma rituals follow the paradigm of the agniṣṭoma, which has been described by W. Caland and V. Henry (1906–1907). For all details refer to this work.
The beginning is the dīkṣā, the consecration of the ritual patron, which can be of variable duration; it takes one day at least, however. He will receive new clothes, a turban, and a belt made of muñja grass and a staff; hair and nails will be cut, and he will sit on an antelope skin and has to stay in a certain hut. Also, there are restrictions regarding food and speech, and similar rules apply to his wife. The consecration has the character of a separation rite, which effects the separation of the ritual subject from his fixed position in the everyday social structure to be transformed and marks the entrance into the liminal phase, which is characterized by the temporary leveling of the former status. The consecrated becomes – regardless of his former social status – a Brahman, or is being approximated to a Brahman. This means that he is connected with the brahman, the formulation of truth (according to Thieme, 1952, 91–129), the revealed vedic word and its innate magical-ritual power. Hand in hand with this is goes another function of the dīkṣā, namely, the preparation of the ritual subject for his rebirth from the sacrifice by his ritual death, or his being guided back to the embryonic state (see e.g. Heesterman, 1957, 97f.; first in Lévi, 1898, 102). Death and entrance into the mother’s womb are congruent. This double aspect of the dīkṣā is paralleled by many passage rites, not only in vedic culture (see Turner 2000, 95).
Following the dīkṣā are three days during which the so-called upasad offerings take place. In the Brāhmaṇa texts, these are connected to mythological accounts about sieges and assaults (thus the designation upasad “siege”). During these days various preparatory sacrifices are offered, but they mainly serve to prepare the soma extraction: the soma plants are ritually bought, and a new ritual enclosure (the mahāvedi, see above), including a hut in which the soma pressing takes place, is prepared. Then, the day of the extraction, sacrifice, and consumption of soma follows, which is done in three pressing sessions (savana): the morning pressing (prataḥsavana), the midday pressing (mādhyandinasavana), and the third or evening pressing (tritīyasavana or arbhavasavana). The designation of “third” instead of “evening pressing” reflects that it was frequently impossible to perform all three sessions in one day, although this is prescribed in the texts.
An important basic principle is the correspondence of graha “soma cups/draughts,” Stotras, chants of the udgātṛ priests, and Śāstra, recitations of the hotṛ priests. Each soma sequence (filling of one or a group of cups, sacrificing, consumption) is connected with a certain Stotra and Śāstra. Most of the Stotras are chanted after the filling of the cups and precede the Śāstras, which are recited before the offering and consumption of the cups. Complex dialogues between certain priests precede the recitations and chants (compare the libations of the yajati type mentioned above). The first Stotra of the morning pressing session, the bahiṣpavamāna, is chanted outside the havirdhāna hut (see above) during the purification of the soma drink. Its text consists of Sāmaveda 2.1.1.1–3 (which is parallel to Ṛgveda 9.11.1–3; 9.64.28–30; 9.66.10–12). Its first part (udgῑtha) is chanted in a special mode called aniruktagāna “chanting without actually pronouncing” (Buitenen 1959, 180f.), meaning, all syllables are replaced by the sound o while the duration of the syllables and the pitch are retained. The corresponding first recitation of the morning pressing is the Ājyaśāstra, which consists of the verses 1–6 of the Ṛgveda hymn 3.13. The number of soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, whose texts can also vary, is the most important distinctive element of the various soma sacrifices. The agniṣṭoma is characterized by 12 soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras: five for the morning and midday pressing each, two during the third pressing. Very important are also the animal sacrifices, of which the so-called savanīyapaśu, or kratupaśu, is the foremost. The number, kind, and deities of these animal sacrifices are the second most important distinguishing features of the various soma rituals. The killing of this sacrificial animal or animals usually takes place during the morning pressing, sacrificing the meat portions during the third pressing. In the agniṣṭoma a he-goat is sacrificed on behalf of the gods Agni and Soma (the deified form of the sacred drink of the same name) as kratupaśu. Finally, the ritual is concluded by a bath (avabhṛtha) of all participants (priests, ritual patron, and his wife) and the sacrifice of a cow.
The soma rituals named above are distinguished from the agniṣṭoma by additional soma sequences and corresponding Stotras, Śāstras, and sacrificial animals. The ukthya has 15 soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, and the three additional ones are added in the third pressing session. Besides this, an additional sacrificial animal, a he-goat, is to be offered to Indra and Agni. The ṣodaśin requires 16 soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, and a further additional sacrificial animal, a ram, for Indra. The atyagniṣṭoma is characterized by adding to the 12 soma sequences of the agniṣṭoma the so-called ṣodaśingraha, ṣodaśinstotra, and ṣodaśinśāstra. Also, the sacrificial animal for Indra, the ram, is required. It is thus a short version of the ṣodaśin. The particularity of the atirātra “lasting overnight” consists of – as the name suggests – a ritual performance that continues through the night: analogous to the three pressings during the day, there are three nocturnal sessions of four soma sequences each. Also, a total of 11 kratupaśu animals are obligatory. There is a detailed documentation by F. Staal (1983) on this soma ritual, based on a performance in 1975 in which the atirātra has been combined with an agnicayana (see above). The aptoryāma requires four additional soma sequences, which are added after the last Stotra/Śāstra of the atirātra.
Regarding the soma sequences, Stotras, and Śāstras, the vājapeya builds on the model of the ṣodaśin (ĀpŚS. 18.1.4). It is characterized by 17 soma sequences, and by additional sacrificial animals, namely a cow for the maruts and 17 he-goats for the creator deity Prajāpati. The vājapeya also includes a number of spectacular ritual actions that start during the midday pressing session:
- -
- A race with 17 chariots takes place.
- -
- The Brahman priest climbs on a wheel mounted on a post and – while chanting a sāman – is revolved on the wheel.
- -
- The ritual patron and his wife climb the sacrificial post (yūpa).
- -
- Clarified butter and other ingredients are poured over (abhiṣeka) the ritual patron, who is sitting on a kind of throne.
- -
- The last soma sequence consists of 17 double draughts for Prajāpati; each soma cup is filled even with a cup of beer (surā). Cups are not dedicated to Prajāpati in any other soma ritual.
- -
- Half of the cow that is sacrificed to the maruts is given to the participants of the chariot race, together with the cups of surā.
The Modular Construction System of the Rituals
As a rule, different ritual paradigms (vegetarian, animal, and soma sacrifice) are combined, and other patterns of ritual action are included as well. The method of combination, a sort of modular construction, is shown by the table.| introduction | preparation | central action | conclusion |
| dīkṣā | three upasad days | Pressing day, soma sacrifice | (a) final bath (avabhṛtha) |
| | includes: | includes: | (b) animal sacrifice |
| | | | (bb) offering of one vegetarian cake |
| | (a) three vegetarian upasad offerings | (a) kratupaśu animal sacrifice | |
| | | (aa) offering of one vegetarian cake for each animal | |
| | (b) three pravargya sacrifices | (b) special features of the vājapeya | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Table 1: The modular construction of the vājapeya ritual. |
Social Structure of Vedic Society and the Development of the Śrauta System: Problems of Reconstruction and Ritual Dynamics
Conclusions regarding the reality of vedic society and culture on the basis of the various vedic texts are only possible with reservations because of the specific literary genres of the texts (see also Schlerath, 1995, 32). Information based on these texts does not allow drawing conclusions in a “one-to-one” relation regarding social reality. We are forced to work with reconstructions that are often built on previous reconstructions. A continual checking of one’s own perspective is necessary to escape a one-sided positivistic, ethnocentric dealing with “evidence” extracted from the sources. The ancient vedic texts are all cut off from their actual, living contexts and mainly represent a certain perspective: of priest schools or ritual specialists belonging to the elite of vedic society. The texts and the rituals have the function to stress the elite’s social definition of society. The texts emerged over a period of about a thousand years, a long time during which great societal and cultural changes took place, which I would like to portray briefly (for further details on the ancient South Asian history, society, politics, and culture, see also Rau, 1957; Witzel, 1995, 1997, and 2003; and the anthology ed. by Erdosy, 1995, with contributions by various scholars).For the rgvedic period (see Oberlies, 1998, 333–362; 1999, 106–118), one has to assume bigger and smaller tribes living in relative autonomy and egalitarianism. Their lifestyle was characterized by “Fluktuation zwischen Kampf, Weiterzug und friedlicher Sesshaftigkeit” (fluctuation among fight, nomadism, and peaceful settlement; Oberlies, 1998). Societal stratification was not yet very pronounced, or fixed. The basic unit of the tribes was the joint family (gṛha “house”), which was headed by the gṛhapati and his wife. The position of the head of the household within the joint family was like that of the “king” (from a modern perspective, perhaps “chief,” or “war lord”; see Schlerath, 1995, 32) of a tribe. This results in another problem in reconstructing social structure: it cannot be absolutely determined whether for instance (ruler-) designations relate to the primary or secondary social structure, which means to the heads of joint families on the one hand or to the chiefs of tribes or even larger polities on the other.
Several of those gṛha formed one viś “settlement, dwelling.” The form of rule of these tribes can be termed – following T. Oberlies – as “Wahlkönigtum” (elected kingship) and “komplementäres Königtum” (complementary kingship): in times of crisis and war, a “war king” or “war chief” was elected who was replaced by a “peace king” in times of peaceful settlement. Culture was probably also characterized by free and widely prevalent acculturation, which led to mixing with local and “aboriginal” elements (see Witzel, 1995, 10). The rituals, or rather some rituals, were the collective affair of the viś (and/or the gṛha?), the benefit of the ritual going to the whole community, whose members were also the actors of the ritual performance. One can assume that various ritual traditions existed side-by-side, mutually influencing one another, whereas in the Ṛgveda only one is represented. The tribes probably also had ritual specialists acting independently of the orthoprax system represented in the vedic texts, although their ritual practice can be detected only in a very limited way in the hieratic system of the Vedic canon.
Towards the end of the rgvedic period, while the mantra collections of the Black Yajurveda were being created for the first time, bigger political units emerged (Witzel, 1995, 1–26). Now, society is characterized by “a front of the Kṣatriya and the Brahmans (brahmakṣatra) against the people (viś).” In the course of time, the stricter stratification along the line of the classical varṇa concept emerged. Also, as a new concept of rule, hereditary kingship developed, that is, the establishment of dynasties. This poses, in a different way from before, the problem of legitimating the rulers and participation of the societal elite in the brahmakṣatra alliance. According to M. Witzel, the new kings established the Śrauta system in order to control the old elite, consisting of priests and aristocracy, and thereby strengthening their own position. So the Śrauta system served the rulers to legitimize their permanent rule, which was no longer established through election, and to consolidate their power. The analysis of the vājapeya shows that this was effected, among other things, by having members of the elite participate in power by permitting them to acquire social prestige through rituals.
Rivalries between rulers and elite, within the elite, and between the elite and “the people” were channeled by the “Śrauta way of stratification” (Witzel, 1995, 12). Śrauta rituals serve several levels of festivity and complexity, that is, the material expenditure, so that every member of society had the opportunity, according to his personal resources, to elevate his own status through performing rituals. So even access to the Śrauta ritual means elevated status. How such a status elevation is effected, or better performed, becomes clear in the vājapeya ritual.
There is no doubt that the Śrauta system is only the last step in the long development of the rituals, up to their last version of textualization in the Śrautasūtras. Since the origin of the mantra collections of the Black Yajurveda – a first textualization – the practice of the rituals (or at least their major parts) must have existed in approximately the form in which they are handed down in the Sūtras that emerged much later. Whether we can actually ascertain the ritual development from the text history of the Yajurvedasaṃhita is an unresolved question. So it is not sure whether the rituals had a past to look back at at the time of the mantra collections, or whether they were conceptualized then only, as is opined by M. Witzel (1995, 25). Likewise there is a wide consensus that elements from various different ritual traditions found their way into the Śrauta system. As can be shown by analyzing, for example, the vājapeya synchronically, in some cases diachronic conclusions can be drawn regarding former stages of development, meanings, or functions of the rituals. But it continues to be very difficult or impossible to exactly reconstruct earlier stages of development, or to determine elements from different traditions beyond a doubt.
In the transition from the rgvedic ritual to the Śrauta system, the following, partly contradictory, factors can be determined, which are valid not just for the vedic ritual:
• Rituals in hieratic religions tend to keep their forms unchanged over a very long time, or to keep at least single archaic practices. According to Lang (1998, 449), the “Erstarrung zur Unveränderlichkeit” (freezing to changelessness) and the conservative tradition of once-fixed rites is one of the characteristics that can be frequently observed in cultic action. Ascriptions of meaning and functions by ritual specialists may change, however.
• According to B. Gladigow (1998, 458), it is typical for the development of rituals to become more comprehensive and elaborate. The increasing complexity is part of a general process of the professionalization of religion, which goes hand in hand with ever more specialists who guarantee and control the rule-consistent performance of a complex ritual. The professionalization of religion, in contrast, is an expression of an increasing social stratification and specialization. These observations fully apply to the development of the Śrauta system in vedic society. The development of religious specialists is also accompanied by the textualization of rituals, which on his part is of great importance for the formation of liturgical authority. Processes of this kind can probably be observed often, when – because of political motives – reforms of ritual systems are being established (see Bell 1988).
• M. Witzel presupposes “early forms of inclusionism” for the formation of the Śrauta system (Witzel, 1995, 10). “Inclusivism,” which has been described as characteristic of later Indian religion, indeed represents an important strategy for the Śrauta ritualists – to establish and maintain their hegemony. To include something is a method to control it and at the same time avoid confrontation. In analyzing the ritual texts, one finds numerous examples of how contradictory statements – obviously originating from different traditions – or older passages next to younger ones are left in place. M. Witzel (1995) has introduced another concept taken from Hinduism studies, “Sanskritization” (first introduced by Srinivas, 1952), in the study of vedic religion. It would be productive to include the concepts of “great and little tradition” first introduced by R. Redfield & M.B. Singer (1954) as well.
I have already mentioned that elements from various ritual traditions have been included in the Śrauta system: it is convenient here to adopt the differentiation of rituals, or ritual traditions, in liturgy-centered and performance-centered ones by J.M. Atkinson (1989, esp. 14f., 252, 298). For a discussion of these categories, see C. Humphrey & J. Laidlaw (1994, 8–12). Liturgy-centered rituals are performed according to a “film script,” while in performance-centered rituals the officiants act freely. Depending on need, they may use elements of an established ritual repertoire and adapt them to specific situations. All societies have both kinds of ritual traditions, and their members make use of both of them, depending on the situation. In my opinion, the Ṛgveda already represents a ritual system having a tendency toward fixed form that was further developed to become the completely liturgy-centered Śrauta system, while elements from other traditions have been included. This can be demonstrated in the cases of the cults of soma and surā in vedic religion (Steiner, forthcoming).
The following “novelties” of the Śrauta ritualists can be detected in the Black Yajurveda and Brāhmaṇa texts’ rituals:
• Various developmental stages of ritualistic interpretation: ritual elements or complete sequences of acts are interpreted in a new way, and various explanations exist side-by-side. The new interpretations are not ad hoc inventions but represent logical further developments of old concepts that coexist alongside the new ones (see for instance in the vājapeya the development of the interpretation of chariot races as “races around the sun as prize” being interpreted as “ride to the world of heaven”).
• The development of new “myths”: the position of the old cosmogonic myths in the direct sense (which can structurally still be detected in the rituals) is taken by other, new (?) mythological tales – partly with the “old” protagonists – of an exclusively etiological-legitimatory character. In this the “appropriation” of the old structures by the representatives of the new system is reflected.
• New deities: the place of Indra, who dominates in the rgvedic soma ritual, is taken by the creator god Prajāpati as the “mythic prototype” of the ritual patron. However, in the Brāhmaṇa texts the ritual patron is still frequently identified with Indra.
• Closely related with this is the belief in the automatic efficacy of the rituals, if performed correctly. T. Oberlies (1998, 276), based on H. Krick (1975), has used the term “Epiphanieritual” (epiphanic ritual) for the rgvedic soma ritual, that is, in the ritual a clear manifestation or visible effect of the deity/deities (especially of Indra) takes place. It is the aim of the ritualists to effect the manifestation of Indra (Krick, 1975, 30). According to the new views of the Śrauta specialists, the success of the rituals does not, however, depend on whether the deity/Indra is actually “incorporated” but on the correct performance of all ritual acts by the specialists.
• To some extent, ritual is withdrawn from society to become the sole concern of the individual yajamāna. This becomes visible in the postulated effects and purposes ascribed to a ritual, such as the vājapeya: the primary effect of this ritual mentioned in the texts is to elevate the patron to a state called svarājya, which indicates an elevated social position. But alongside this function of status elevation, which affects society as a whole, one more ritual topic, the ascension of the yajamāna to the world of heaven, is given great significance. This ascension is conceptualized as a ritual death or self-sacrifice of the patron.
• Closely connected with this point is the tendency of internalization or spiritualization of the rituals, a tendency that only becomes increasingly manifest only towards the end of Brāhmaṇa period (on the internalization of sacrifice in connection with the concept of saṃnyāsa “renouncement,” see Biardeau, 1976, 57–80). One more point manifesting itself in late and post vedic thought is the tendency toward moralization concerning the problem of killing of sacrificial animals (see Houben, 1999) as opposed to the emerging concept of ahiṃsā (see also Alsdorf, 1962; Bodewitz, 1999). Also, an emerging emphasis on individuality seems to play an important role in these tendencies: the position of the human being seems to be formed not so much by outward determinants (institutionalized roles) but by inner qualities (e.g. through cognition, in upanishadic thought).
Śrauta Tradition Today
The Śrauta ritual tradition survived the decline of vedic religion (see above) in different areas of the Indian subcontinent and was performed almost exclusively by Brahman sacrificers. Additionally, the performance of large rituals was promoted or revived from time to time by various dynasties in connection with the legitimization of their rule (for an example of the revival in the 18th cent. under Kachvaha ruler Jaisiṅgh of Jaipur, see Horstmann, 2009). As stated above, Śrauta rituals have also survived up to the present. C.G. Kashikar & A. Parpola (1983) provide an inventory of all local and regional performative traditions of Śrauta rituals in 20th century until that year (for the geographic distribution of sacrificers, see the table above; most of them are located in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala). F.M. Smith (1987, 3) counts 150 individuals throughout the Indian subcontinent who practise Śrauta rituals. A prominent place is occupied by the tradition of the Nambūtiri Brahmans in Kerala in South India, which has also been well researched (see e.g. Narayan & Veluthat, 1983; Parpola, 2000; Govindan Namboodiri, 2002).Important reasons for not performing the extensive Śrauta rituals all too often are certainly the high organizational expenses and costs (see e.g. Staal, 1992; Mahadevan & Staal 2005). The fear is expressed repeatedly that the traditions are dying out. The reason for that danger lies, among other things, in the fact that there are few people and still fewer institutions to look after the continued existence of the manifold, exclusively oral transmission of the liturgical texts and prescriptions concerning their recitation and intonation and the smooth performance of the rituals. The chances that a priest could earn a living are small in light of the enormous expenses that his training and such performances demand. But T.P. Mahadvan & F. Staal (2005) are more optimistic than in earlier publications with respect to the continued existence of the Śrauta rituals of the Nambūtiri Brahmans.
The Nambūtiri tradition concerns the following rituals:
- 1.
- the atirātrāgnicayana, a very extensive soma ritual that lasts 12 days (see above);
- 2.
- the agniṣṭoma, the simplest form of the soma ritual (see above); and
- 3.
- the agnyādheya, the ritual of establishing the sacrificial fires (see above), which is the precondition for all other rituals (for all recent performances of agniṣṭoma and agnicayana until that year, see Somayajipad, Ravi Nambudiri & Raman Nambudiri, 1983).
The performance of a vājapeya ritual in Pune and Maharastra in 1955 documented under the supervision of J.A.B. van Buitenen was clearly different in character from the Nambūtiri rituals. In the film, this performance makes a clearly stronger “revivalist” impression than the Nambūtiri rituals do. T.P. Mahadevan & F. Staal (2005) characterize the tradition of the Nambūtiri as “strictly oral, even atavistic but living” and, in contrast, the sacrificers from Maharastra and other regions as “innovative and literate.”
All modern Śrauta performances are to some extent “Hinduized” (see Smith, 1987, 32–51), which means among other things that certain ritual practices are avoided, such as the offering of the alcoholic drink surā prescribed in the vājapeya being replaced by milk. In the quoted performances of the agnicayana and vājapeya, the numerous sacrificial animals required, after the prescribed rites are carried out, are not killed. The portions of meat to be sacrificed are replaced by vegetarian oblatory materials. Animal sacrifice is “hotly disputed,” but many sacrificers still offer animal sacrifices (Smith, 1987, 40). The substitution of animal victims by vegetarian offerings is accepted in ancient Śrautasūtras, however (ĀpŚS. 12.24.10; KātŚS. 10.9.14–15).
The agniṣṭoma of 2003 represents, according to T.P. Mahadevan and F. Staal (2005, 383), “a new Śrauta model in the sense that its patron is the public at large.” Nevertheless, in this performance a yajamāna is also appointed according to the traditional rules. As F. Staal admits, the last Nambūtiri rituals performed in accordance with the classical model, that is, with a sacrificial patron who (or whose extended family) financed and organized the ritual, occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. That means that the other rituals cited here were possible only with the help of a wider circle of sponsors, too. This applies also to the vājapeya ritual in 1955 that we mentioned above, which was associated with a large public collection.
Comments
Post a Comment