This paper was read as the annual Kinglsey Martin Memorial Lecture on 12 May 1993 under the auspices of the Centre of South Asian Studies, University of Cambridge. I wish to thank the Committee of Management for the honour of being invited to deliver the lecture.

¹ Chāndogya-Upanisad 4.4–9.Google Scholar

² Ibid., 4.4.2. In spite of the (later) brahmanic stress on the patrilineal gotra the teacher-pupil lists do contain metronymics, such as Samjīvīputra; the list of Brhad-Āranyaka-Upanisad 6.5.1–3 even contains a long series of such names. Although the story of Satyakāma also subscribes to the patriline's all but exclusive importance, the aggravating point may well have been his mother's status as a servant girl (paricārinī), meaning that the question of any form of jurally recognized connubial status did not arise, if it was not precluded. Once admitted to the teacher's household Satyākama could, however, claim to belong to his teacher's gotra (cf. Āpastamba Śrauta-sūtra 24.10.17). Hence the social importance for Satyakāa of finding a teacher and patron.

³ The sequel tells us a similar story of a pupil of Satyakāma—now himself a great teacher. In this case the pupil is kept in the household for an interminable time to the point that out of distress he refuses to eat. Finally, when the teacher is away on a journey, the sacrificial fires which he faithfully tends take pity on him and, as in the case of Satyakāma, reveal the brahman. Again as in the previous story, the teacher notices on his return the change that has overcome his pupil and only then starts to teach him (ibid., 4.10–14). Although in this case the pupil is not sent out into the wilds to herd the teacher's cattle, the ordeal that leads to the decisive revelation is no less severe. Nor does it seem to be accidental that the revelation comes when the teacher has gone himself on a journey, leaving his pupil in a wilderness of utter distress and frustration.

⁴ See the reference in the preceding note for a graphic picture of the brahmacarin and his suffering as a domestic servant.Google Scholar

⁵ Maitrāyanī Samhitā 4.2.6:27.18.Google Scholar

⁶ Atharva-Veda 11.5.Google Scholar

⁷ It is significant that the Mongolian and Turkic languages of the Inner Asian pastoral nomads have no native word for warrior or soldier (Sinor, D., ‘The Inner Asian Warriors’, JAOS (1981), p. 135).Google Scholar

⁸ CfFalk, H., Bruderschaft und Würfelspiel (Freiburg, 1986), pp. 68–70.Google Scholar

⁹ CfHeesterman, J. C., The Broken World of Sacrifice (Chicago, 1993), pp. 127–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ CfKrick, H., Das Ritual der Feuergründung (Vienna, 1982), pp. 534, 579;Google ScholarHeesterman, , Broken World of Sacrifice, p. 131.Google Scholar

¹¹ CfSchmidt, H. P., ‘The Origin of Ahimsā’, in: Comm. Vol. Louis Renou (Paris, 1968), p. 651.Google Scholar

¹² Āpastamba Śrauta-sūtra 10.13.6;Google ScholarHenry, W. Caland-V., L'Agnistoma (Paris, 1906–1907), p. 22.Google ScholarFor the begging and for the dīksita's trekking: Āpastamba Śs. 10.18.5; 19.17;Google ScholarCaland-Henry, op. cit., nos 23 and 24.Google Scholar

¹³ Maitrāyanī Samhitā 3.9.1:112.4–5;Google ScholarCfSamhitā, Kāthaka 26.2:123.16–17.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Āpastamba Srauta-sutra 20.5.13–17;Google ScholarDumont, P.-É., L'Aśvamedha (Paris-Louvain, 1927), pp. III, 38, 254, 304.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Baudhāyana Śrauta-sūtra 16.12:260.3;Google ScholarCfHeesterman, , Broken World, pp. 180, 183, 279 n. 86.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Taittirīya Samhitā 7.5.9.1.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., 7.4.11.2; CfFalk, Bruderschaft, pp. 36, 43.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Taittirīya Brahmana 1.8.4.1–2,Google ScholarCfRau, W.Slaat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien (Wiesbaden, 1957), p. 15 and n. 2;Google ScholarHeesterman, J. C.The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration (The Hague, 1957), p. 211.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On the vrātyas see Heesterman, J. C. ‘Vrātya and Sacrifice’, Indo-Ir. Journ. 6 (1962), pp. 1–37;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFalk, H., Bruderschaft, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar

²⁰ CfHeesterman, , Broken World, pp. 179, 183.Google Scholar

²¹ Kāthaka Samhitā 26.2:122. yathā grāmas samgrāmad visrjyate.Google Scholar

²² Āpastamba Śrauta-sūtra 6.15.10.Google ScholarCfDumont, P. É., L'Agnihotra (Baltimore, 1939) PP. 37f 87f;Google ScholarBodewitz, H. W., The Daily Evening and Morning Offering (Leiden, 1976), pp. 116f.Google Scholar

²³ Taittirīya Samhitā 5.2.1.7.Google Scholar

²⁴ Śatapatha Brāhmana 6.8.1.1.Google Scholar

²⁵ Kāthaka Samhitā 8.12:96.7 pusto ’sura iva.Google Scholar

²⁶ See above, n. 23.Google Scholar

²⁷ Rigveda, 10.151.3; Taittirīya Brāhmana 2.8.8.7.Google Scholar

²⁸ Vaikhānasa Śrauta-sūtra 17.18:248.2; CfLātyāyana, Śs. 18.7.10,12.1.Google Scholar

²⁹ CfHeesterman, Broken World, pp. 128, 131.Google Scholar

³⁰ Vādhula-sūtra (Caland, W., Acta Orientalia 6, 1927) fragm. 108, p p. 329–32.Google Scholar

³¹ Āsvalāyana Grhya-sutra 1.23.1; CfŚānkhayana, Gs. 5.1.1.Google Scholar

³² For the ritualistic version of the dicing game see Falk, , Bruderschaft, pp. 134–74.Google Scholar

³³ Vrīhibhyo gām dīvyata, Āpastamba Śrauta-sūtra 15.19.4; Hiranyakeśin Śs. 3.5:321; Bhāradvāja Śs. 5.12.5.Google Scholar

³⁴ Maitrāyant Samhitā 4.4.6:57.7–10.Google Scholar

³⁵ CfHeesterman, , Royal Consecration, pp. 222f.Google Scholar

³⁶ Khazanov, A. M., Nomads and the Outside World (Cambridge, 1983), p. 169, see also pp. 192–7.Google Scholar

³⁷ CfHeesterman, , Broken World, pp. 185–7.Google Scholar

³⁸ Āpastamba Śs. 10.11.5–6; Henry, W. Caland-V., L'Agnistoma, no. 18. In fact, the brāhmana style given to the dīksita is proleptic, because it is only later on—not at the time of the dīksā—that he is ‘born out of the brahman, out of the sacrifice’ (Śatapatha Br.3.2.1.4). In the ritualists’ static system the outcome is already given right at the beginning. The older texts, however, do not style him brāhmana (Kāthaka 8.23.5:80.4; Maitrāyanī S. 3.6.9:72.1; Cf Mānava Śs. 2.1.2.23).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Heesterman, , Royal Consecration, pp. 141f.Google Scholar