JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012 5

Claiming Modes of Mediation in Ancient

Hindu and Buddhist Ancestor Worship
Matthew R. Sayers

Abstract
During the transition from Vedic religion to the formative stages of Hinduism, the mode of mediation be-
tween the lay religious patron and various supernatural beings, e.g., ancestors, shifted. While the earlier pe-
riod was characterized by sacrifices into the ritual fire, the latter saw the emergence of gifting to individuals.
This study of the Indian ancestral rite of sräddha demonstrates how Brahmin and Buddhist authors claimed
religious expertise within this new mode of patronage as the social value of large-scale sacrifice declined.
One aspect of the newer model was the substitution of the Brahmin and monk for the ritual fire employed
in the ancestral rites. As a part of a larger argument about Brahmanical and Buddhist intellectual discourse
on the householder’s ritual responsibilities, this paper describes the efforts of both traditions to establish
their religious experts as the superior recipient of religious giving, specifically for the offerings made in the
sräddha.

One central aspect of the transition from Vedic reli-
gion to the formative stages of Hinduism, which is coin-
cident with the rise of Buddhism, is the redefinition of
the role of mediator. In the Vedic model, Agni, the per-
sonification of the ritual fire, acted as the intermediary
between the human sacrificer and the supernatural enti-
ties that he sought to propitiate through ritual, specifi-
cally gods and ancestors. The religious experts of this pe-
riod— from the middle of the first millennium BCE to
the beginning of the Common Era— in both traditions
substituted human mediators for the divine mediator. In
this paper I argue that the initial innovations in this de-
velopment are enacted first in the construction of the new
paradigm for ancestor worship and the later development
is predicated upon this model of ancestor worship. To
demonstrate this innovation in ritual enactment, I pri-
marily employ the Brahmanical texts that describe the
sräddhay an ancestral rite in which householders offer
balls of rice to sustain their ancestors in heaven, and Bud-
dhist texts that treat the offerings to petas, literally de-
parted, more conventionally ghosts.
The role of mediation is central to understanding the
interplay of the householder as religious actor and the
Brahmanical and Buddhist religious experts who conduct
or participate in the rituals sponsored by the householder.
The householder, grhapati in Sanskrit and gahapati in
Pali, is the primary religious actor in ancient India;1he is
a married man with enough disposable income to engage
in religious activities. Primary among his concerns that
we would label religious are the cultural artifacts shared
in all south Asian sub-cultures: hospitality, propitiation
of the divine, and ancestor worship. The Brahmanical
and Buddhist ideologues, the educated elite among the
religious experts, sought the patronage of the house-
holders and composed discursive texts to advance their
conception of the proper religious life addressing these
three ritual obligations regularly. The texts describe the
proper ritual and moral life, and the impact of these texts
on later generations indicates that these prescriptive in-
junctions had influence beyond the limited circles of the
educated. The competitive nature of the discursive efforts
to define the proper householder is central to under-
standing the relationship of the Brahmanical and Bud-
dhist reflections on ancestor worship. Central to the con-
stitution of the relationship between the householder and
the religious expert he employs is the role the expert plays
as a mediator.
Religious experts of both the Brahmanical and the Bud-
dhist intellectual traditions construct their notions of the
householder rituals in such a way as to appropriate for
themselves the role of mediator, i.e., as a go-between that
effects the exchange between the householder and the su-
pernatural entities that he propitiates in ritual, namely,
the gods and the ancestors.2In taking this role for them-
selves they displaced the divine fire of the Vedic sacrifice,
Agni, as the intermediary and substitute a human inter-
mediary. The construction of this new mode of media-
tion grows out of the increased centrality of the sräddha
to the religious obligations of the ancient householder,
and the form of that new mode owes a great deal to the
6 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012
conception of ancestor worship shaped in the period be-
tween the Grhyasütras, domestic ritual manuals com-
posed in the second half of the first millennium BCE, and
the Mänavadharmasästra, a legal treatise composed in
the second century of the Common Era (Oldenberg 1967:
xxxiv-xxxvi and Olivelle 2004: xxiii).
I address three main themes in the appropriation of
the role of mediator: 1. the substitution of human me-
diators for Agni; 2. the importance of the qualifications
of the human mediator; and 3. a metaphor shared by
both traditions and deployed to advocate the new
human model of mediation. I first describe the older
model of mediation, then the efforts within both tra-
ditions to reassign this role to a human actor. Central
to the Brahmanical effort is the definition of the char-
acteristics to be possessed by the Brahmin who acts as
intermediary, while the Buddhists employ a variety of
strategies, primarily relying on anecdotal tales of Brah-
manical corruption. Finally, I will show that both Brah-
manical and Buddhist efforts to appropriate this role
coincide in one particular metaphor, the metaphor of
the field and the seed.
The Vedic religion is evidenced in the hymns of the
Rg Veda— the core liturgical text of the Vedic period dat-
ing to the end of the second millennium BCE— and the
Brähmanas— vast commentaries composed in the first
half of the first millennium BCE which reflect upon the
rituals of the Vedic period. What has come to be called
classical Hinduism has its roots in the sütra literature,
texts composed of short aphoristic phrases that describe
large-scale public rituals known as srauta rites, domes-
tic ritual activities known as grhya rites, and dharma,
variously translated as Law, religion, duty, and referring
to the religious practice advocated by the educated elite
who composed these texts. During the transition from
the Vedic period to the formative stages of Hinduism just
described,3the mode of mediation between the lay reli-
gious patron and various supernatural beings, e.g., an-
cestors, shifted. While the earlier period was character-
ized primarily by sacrifices into the ritual fire, the latter
saw the emergence of and increased emphasis on gifting
to individuals in a ritual context. Certain changes in the
role of the religious expert accompanied the waning of
the popularity of the large-scale, public, srauta rituals
and the rising in the popularity of the small-scale, do-
mestic, grhya rituals. The sacrificial model of Vedic re-
ligion gave way in the later period to newer models of
religious practice. One feature of these newer practices
is broader access to the beneficial powers of supernatu-
ral entities, e.g., gods and ancestors. Central to broad-
ening this access was the redefinition of the role of the
religious expert, specifically the mode of mediation that
the religious expert was said to effect between the ritu-
alist and the supernatural entity he sought to propitia-
tion through ritual.
Vedic Mediation
The srauta model of ritual relied on two mediators, one
divine and one human. Agni, the ritual fire, was the divine
mediator between the Vedic priest and the supernatural be-
ings the patron wished to influence through sacrifice. All
offerings made in Vedic ritual were offered into the fire,
personified as Agni, who conveys them to the entities to
whom they were dedicated in ritual. The Vedic priest was
the human mediator between the patron and the divine
access granted by Agni. The newer, domestic model fo-
cused on the role of the religious experts as mediators, em-
phasizing ritual gifts made to those same supernatural be-
ings through the mediation of these religious experts.
Domestic ritual manuals composed in the middle of the
first millennium BCE, the Grhyasütras, describe the an-
cestral rites and evidence an innovative take on the role of
the religious expert inherited from the Vedic tradition. In
these texts the divine and human role in mediating ritual
offerings were appropriated to one religious expert. Of par-
ticular importance in distinguishing between these two
models is the substitution of the Brahmin— who stands
in for the deceased in the sräddha— for the ritual fire. The
Buddhist ideologues too made efforts to rework the older
model of mediation— with the Buddha or the Sangha, the
Buddhist monastic community, as stand in for the ritual
fire— efforts that are most clear in their handling of an-
cestor worship.4These adaptations, however, take the Vedic
conception of ritual as their foundation, innovating with
that worldview as their starting point.
In the period of this study the efficacy of Vedic ritual
faces many challenges, from within the brahmanical tra-
dition and from without. This section outlines the efforts
made by challengers of both kinds, particularly in their
efforts to reshape the tradition. Such reinterpretation,
however, does not begin from scratch, both Brahmin and
Buddhist ideologues reflected on the older tradition, often
appropriating sacrificial language, to describe and vali-
date newer religious activities (See, for example, Egge
2002 and Falk 1988). To begin, let us consider the older,
Vedic model of mediator, namely the ritual fire.
The Vedic sacrifice offers the patron of the sacrifice the
opportunity to, among other things, set up stores for his
afterlife. This is seen already in one of the funeral hymns
of the Rg Veda:
Join with the Fathers, with Yama by means of your
sacrifices and gifts in the highest heaven. Having

abandoned imperfection, reach your home again;
may you illustrious ones join with a (new) body.
RV 10.14.8
The deceased goes to heaven, joining the ancestors and
Yama, the god of the Dead, on account of the sacrifices
he performs and the gifts he has made. The author of the
Satapatha Brâhmana> an encyclopedic commentary on
the Vedic ritual, makes this point more explicitly, indi-
eating that the offerings themselves become the body of
the sacrifice in heaven (SB 11.2.2.5-6).
But the ancient ritual patron could not secure heaven
by himself; nor could he perform the Vedic sacrifices by
himself. He required both the mediation of the Vedic priest
and the divine intervention of Agni. The Vedic priests were
the human agents of mediation; they controlled the rit-
ual, i.e., a patron can only access the divine via their me-
diation. The priest’s extensive ritual knowledge and ritual
purity qualified him for approaching the sacred fire, Agni,
i.e., to perform the ritual on the householder’s behalf, but
the patron of the sacrifice derives all the benefit of the rit-
ual performance.
The tradition, however, focuses on Agni as the me-
diator, thus the religious experts’ efforts to transform
the ritual interaction between the human and super-
natural are aimed at substituting human agents for the
sacred fire. The religious experts of both traditions re-
conceptualize their role as intermediary. Instead of
merely a logistical expert assisting Agni in establishing
a connection between sacrifice and deity or ancestor,
they now occupy a role they themselves constructed that
combines the role of the human intermediary with that
of Agni. The details of that construction are the sub-
ject of this essay. Let us begin with an examination of
Agni’s role.
Agni as Mediator
In the oldest Vedic ritual, Agni mediated between the
human priest and the divine. Agni’s role as the mediator
between the human patron and the gods is well known;
he connects the human sacrificer with his supernatural
counterpart, not only transferring the food to the gods
and ancestors, but bringing the gods to the ritual space
and even transferring the deceased to the next world (RV
10.14). The very first hymn of the Rg Veda describes Agni’s
role as mediator.
2. Agni must be invoked by the Sages— both those
past and present. He will convey the gods here.
3. Through Agni, the sacrifice will attain wealth, a
prosperity day after day, which brings glory and
many heroes.
JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012 7
4. O Agni, the sacrifice, the ceremony which you
encompass on every side— that very one goes to
the gods. R V 1.1.2-4
Agni brings the gods to the ritual space and brings the
sacrifice to the gods. It is through him that the rewards
of sacrifice, prosperity and sons, are won.
In one of the funeral hymns of the Rg Veda Agni’s role
as intermediary in both rituals to the gods and those to the
ancestors is stated explicitly. Agni carries the corpses to
heaven, and he carries the sacrifice to the ancestors (RV
10.16.11-12). Agni is the intermediary for both offerings
of food to the gods and to the ancestors. Finally, Agni even
brings the ancestors to the ritual so that they can consume
the offerings made in the ritual. His role as divine inter-
mediary is the foundation of the exchange enacted in Vedic
sacrifice and it is clear that here he is the mediator for both
divine and ancestral rites.
The later tradition of domestic ritual preserves this role
for Agni. In his Grhyasütra, Äsvaläyana draws upon the
authority of a Brähmana that indicates that Agni is the
mouth of the gods to make this point. “It says in a Brah-
mana, ‘The gods have Agni as their mouth, the Fathers
have the hand as their mouth’ ” (As'GS 4.7.22). The
metaphor of the mouth indicates that the gods are fed
through the ritual (See also SB 2.4.2). The fulcrum of this
metaphor is Agni. The ancestors are said to have the Brah-
min as their mouth because the offerings made to the an-
cestors are offered into the hands of the Brahmins. Thus,
as the food for the gods is given to them through the sac-
rificial fire, the food for the ancestors is offered into the
hands of the Brahmins. The offering that in the Vedic sac-
rificial model would be made through a priest and into
the fire, is now made to the Brahmin, who stands in for
the deceased, effecting a more direct mediation between
the householder and his ancestors. The author’s— and
his audience’s— understanding of the metaphor rests on
their conception of Agni as the mediator in ritual. This
passage also highlights the transition from divine to
human mediator, a transition that saw the substitution
of the Brahmin for Agni.
Brahmin as Mediator
As the appeal of large-scale sacrifice in the Vedic
world began to wane, the religious experts — specifi-
cally those Brahmins who composed the texts on srauta
ritual, those who had a vested interest in the continu-
ation of a priest-managed Vedic ritual — found their
role in the religious life waning as well. The religious
experts created a new role for a human actor to fill; a
man who possessed the proper character could stand in
8 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012
the place of Agni as intermediary. The passage from the
Äsvaläyana Grhyasütra quoted above indicates the par-
allel between the feeding of the gods through the ritual
fire, Agni, in sacrifice and the offering of food to the
ancestors accomplished by feeding Brahmins, i.e., “the
hand.” Just as Agni mediates between the householder
and the gods he seeks to feed through sacrifice, the Brah-
min, here represented by his hand, mediates between
the householder and his ancestors, by accepting the food
given in a sräddha and conveying it to the ancestors.
The parallel appears elsewhere more explicitly.
In the mythic introduction to the ancestral offerings,
Äpastamba says: “In this (ritual) the Fathers are the di-
vinity, but the Brahmins stand in for the offertorial fire”
(ÄpDhS 2.16.3). The Brahmin stands in for Agni and, as
Agni does, conveys the oblations to the ancestors. This
new role of the religious elite, specifically the Brahmin,
is most clear in the Grhyasütras.
The authors of the Grhyasütras indicate another new
aspect of the Brahmins role: the householder implores
the Brahmin to declare the day meritorious and proclaim
the success of the ritual. Consider Hiranyakesin:
Having served food to Brahmins and caused them
to say “(This is a) meritorious day! Blessings! Pros-
perity!” They rest that night. HGS 2.7.17.13
I suggest that this is the impetus for the textualization of
the older tradition of domestic rites, namely that the Brah-
mins wrote themselves into the role of religious expert.
Whereas the older Vedic model gave certain Brahmins a role
as priest, this new ritual model opened the role of religious
expert to learned Brahmins who were not priests.5The steady
increase in the textual material on the importance of the
Brahmin as religious expert, and particularly of the im-
portance in choosing the Brahmin carefully, suggests that
the role is new at the time of the earliest Grhyasütras.
By the time of the Grhyasütras the Brahmins’ new role
had become an integral part of the domestic ritual, but
the role was not open to any Brahmin; it is available only
to the religiously knowledgeable Brahmin. The authors of
the Grhyasütras enjoin the feeding of Brahmins in his out-
line of the basic ritual paradigm, but add a qualification:
the quality of the Brahmin to be invited is very important.
Additionally, the concern about the quality of the Brah-
min invited to the sräddha increases and concomitantly
receives considerable more attention in the later tradition.
The Qualities of a Brahmin to Be Invited to a
sräddha
The concern over the character and learning of the
Brahmins to be fed at a ritual is first expressed in the
Grhyasütras, but appears there in only a very few cases.
Only four of the fifty-eight instances where the Grhyasü-
tras indicate that Brahmins should be fed, indicate the
qualities sought in the proper ritual guest. Säfikhäyana
and Äpastamba describe the Brahmins in this way:
Without consideration of benefit, he should feed an
uneven number, at least three, of virtuous (suci)
(Brahmins) learned in the Vedas (mantravat), who
are unconnected by relation, mantra, or gotra.
SpGS 8.21.2
Having made offerings to the gods, ancestors, or
men, he should feed Brahmins conversant in the
Vedas (srotriya). SGS 2.14.19
The terms— mantravat, learned in the Vedas, and srotriya,
conversant in the Vedas— indicate that the authors agree
that a learned guest is important to the success of the rit-
ual. Not all Grhyasütra authors explicitly state that only
Brahmins of learning and good moral character should
be invited to a ritual, but later authors stress this charac-
teristic a great deal.
Elsewhere Särikhäyana speaks of the qualities of the
recipients as well, though in greater detail.
1 At the conclusion of rites (there is) the feeding of
Brahmins.
2 A (nice) voice, beauty, age, learning (sruta),
moral character (sila), and moral conduct (vrtta):
These are the qualities (sought).
3 Learning exceeds them all.
4 He should not overlook learning.
5 About the gods, about the self, and about sacri-
fice: These are the three (types of knowledge) given
in the Vedas and a Brähmana; they are called learn-
ing.
6 One who performs the rites properly, one who is
studying, one who is experienced in learning, one
who practices austerities: Hunger will never again
gnaw at that one who feeds one of them.
7 Whichever gods he would satiate at any rite, in-
tending it for that (deity) in his mind, he should
give to a person of that sort.
8 An oblation entrusted to one of this sort never fails
to go to the god; this one is called the treasure-house
of men and the vessel of the gods. SGS 1.2.1-8
The emphasis on learning— sruta, specifically religious
learning— among the qualities sought echoes the terms
seen above: mantravat and srotriya. Further the terms em­

ployed here, and elsewhere, specify a conception of learn-
ing that is intimately tied to knowledge of the Vedas. Ad-
ditionally, the author reassures his audience that offer-
ings made to such a man never fail.
The Brahmins — and the Buddhists— value knowl-
edge and moral character, but they also take this op-
portunity to assert their own identity; the Buddhists
make similar distinctions. Both traditions agree that
knowledge and good character are required to take on
the role of intermediary, but they differ on the type of
knowledge and the particular aspects of character that
are to be valued.
While I discuss these passages in the general context
of Brahmins fed at domestic rites, it is significant that
two of the four passages cited above bear a direct rela-
tionship on the rituals of ancestor worship. Äpastamba
specifically mentions the qualification in the context of
offering made at a sräddha. Additionally, Äsvaläyana 4.7.2
indicates that Brahmins invited to a sräddha should be
“endowed with fame, character, and (good behavior), or
with one (of these).” Särikhäyana 4.1.1 describes the ideal
invitee as learned in the Vedas, vedavid. This concern over
the qualities of the Brahmins invited to a sräddha in-
creases dramatically in the subsequent literature. I sug-
gest this is due to the second aspect of the Brahmins’ role
in the sräddhay namely their role as stand-in for the an-
cestors.
The overall trend in the Grhyasütras, I suggest, is of an
increase in this concern, driven by the increased importance
of the qualifications of the recipient in the success of any
gift. The subsequent genre of literature we would call reli-
gious, the Dharmasütra, was composed in the last few cen-
turies before the Common Era and early in the Common
Era (Olivelle 2000: 4-10). Written in the same brief apho-
ristic style, these texts address the duties of the Brahmin,
his dharma. The Dharmasütras are the first texts in a grow-
ing concern for how best to describe the Law, the dharma
by which men should live their lives. The evidence found
in the Dharmasütras supports my assertion about this trend.
The dharma literatures concern over the qualities of
Brahmins to be invited to a sräddha, nearly absent in the
previous literature, increases dramatically in the subse-
quent tradition, i.e., the Epics and Puränas. The new im-
portance granted this aspect of the sräddha is significant
for understanding the efforts — and the parameters of
those efforts— made by both Brahmins and Buddhists to
secure the role of mediator. Additionally, that fact that
this trend has a strong association with the sräddha early
in its development suggests that the conception of an-
cestor worship was influential on the development of
models of religious patronage. I will develop this further
in the subsequent sections.
JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012 9
Qualities of the Brahmins in the Dharmasütras
The qualifications of invitees receive greater attention
in the Dharmasütras. Each of the Dharmasütra authors
lists both specific qualities and rules for making com-
promises if Brahmins of quality are unavailable.
He should invite, on the previous day or that very
day, an uneven number of (Brahmins), at least
three, who demonstrate good conduct and are well
versed in the Vedas, who are not related by birth,
by lineage, or by mantra, who are virtuous and
learned in the Vedas and have them sit on seats pre-
pared with Darbha grass facing east, or facing the
north. BDhS 2.14.6 (Olivelle)
Baudhäyana is unambiguous; the invited Brahmins should
be caranavat, well behaved, and anücäna, well versed in
the Vedas, as well as suci> virtuous or honest, and mantra-
vat, learned in the Vedas. The term mantravat used here
indicates a continuity between the tradition of the
Grhyasütras, where the same term is used (HGS
2.4.10.2-3; ÄpGS 8.21.2), and the Dharmasütras.
In his Dharmasütra Äpastamba lists only one quality
to be sought: brahmavid, being well versed in the Vedas
(ÄpDhS 2.17.4-10). Ideally, the householder will find
such a Brahmin that is not related to him by birth, by
gotray or by the associations created in performing a sac-
rifice, or being in a student-teacher relationship. An of-
fering to such people, the quoted verses tells us, does
not reach the ancestors and bears no merit for the man
who made the offering; in other words it is a complete
failure. However, while inviting such a relation to the
sräddha is not ideal, it is permissible if one cannot find
one learned in the Vedas outside ones relations. Thus
brahmavid is the most important criterion for Äpas-
tamba; learning trumps all disqualifications. This is one
of several ways that the authors praise the quality of
learning. Finally, he gives his audience rules for decid-
ing between Brahmins who seem equally qualified with
respect to learning: older Brahmins are more preferable
than younger ones and the poor are preferable to the
wealthy.
Gautama expands the list from Baudhäyanas two pairs
of synonyms — caranavat and swd, describing proper
moral behavior, and anücäna and mantravaty indicating
learning— and Äpastamba’s summary brahmavid. Gau-
tama describes Brahmins who are srotriya, conversant in
the Vedas, and endowed with väc, eloquence, rüpa,
beauty, vayah, youth, and sïla, moral character (GDhS
15.6-11). Here we can see the conservative nature of the
tradition at work; several of these terms are borrowed
from earlier authors.
10 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012
While Vasistha agrees on the quality srotriya, conversant
in the Vedas, Vasistha applies it to specific persons: ascetics,
yati, and virtuous householders, grhasthän sädhün (VDhS
11.17). The remainder of the list enumerates negative qual-
ities to be avoided in an invitee (See also ÄpDhS 2.17.21).
The Brahmins should not be too old, aparinatavayasa, nor
engage in improper occupations, avikarmastha, nor be a
pupil of the householder sponsoring the ritual, though he
may feed his pupils if they are of the best character. The
other Brahmins to be avoided share a common trait: they
possess a quality that disqualifies them from ritual partici-
pation. It thus follows that they would be prohibited from
participating in a sräddha.
The import of another person excluded, who is called
nagna, naked, in this context indicates another reason for
exclusion. The word has generated many different inter-
pretations, including someone with an unlucky horoscope
and one negligent in his duties (Olivelle 2000: 661, n
11.19), but more likely refers to the Jain monks who
walked about in the nude and are often defined by this
practice.6Thus this passage would reflect the competition
for resources that the Brahmin authors must surely have
felt in a culture with an abundance of people claiming to
be fit to receive alms.
This rule indicates another intriguing possibility. If there
is a proscription against something, it is a safe assumption
that that thing is occurring. With reference to Arthasästra
3.20.16, which recommends a fine for anyone who feeds
“contemptible Buddhist or Äjivika ascetics” at rites for the
gods or ancestors (säkyäjtvikädin vrsalapravajitän deva ‫־‬
pitrkäryesu bhojayatah satyo dandah), James Egge says: “If
this rule was formulated in response to actual practice, we
may conclude that some laypeople and Buddhist monas-
tics did regard sräddha rites observed by Brähmanas and
Buddhists to be the same rite, and did not see such rites
as inherently Brahmanical, and therefore not Buddhist”
(2002: 33). Vasistha’s injunction similarly implies that the
sräddha was not limited to Brahmins in practice. Both of
these passages indicate an atmosphere of competition for
patronage that underlies the reconstruction of South Asian
modes of ritual behavior described in this essay.
In all these lists, the central characteristic to be sought
in a Brahmin is learning. Vasistha reinforces this with his
next sútra. Learning is enough to overcome the detri-
mental effect of the bodily defects that normally defile a
sräddha. In fact, the learning of a man who knows the
mantras will purify those with whom he is seated at the
sräddha ( VDhS 11.20). Such comparisons reinforce the
priority of learning in evaluating the qualities of a Brah-
min.
Baudhäyana also lists Brahmins who will purify those
whom they join at the meal.7
2 A man who knows the three “Honey” verses; an
expert in the three Näciketas fire altars; a man who
knows the Trisuparna; a man who maintains the
five sacred fires; a man who knows the six Vedic
Supplements; a man who performs the “Head”
vow; a man who sings the Jyestha Sämans; and a
bath-graduate— these purify the people alongside
whom they eat. 3 When such individuals are not
available, [he may invite] a man who knows the se-
cret texts. 4 Rg verses, Yajus formulas, and Säman
chants are the glory of an ancestral offering. He
should, therefore, feed a man who knows them,
even if he happens to belong to his own ancestry.
BDhS 2.14.2-4 (Olivelle)
The emphasis on learning is clear and the specifics also
accord well with the use— in both Grhyasütras and Dhar-
masútras — of the term mantravat, since the specific
knowledge valued here is the knowledge of the Vedas.
The last sütra informs us of the reason for valuing this
knowledge; the Brahmins were to recite these mantras at
the sräddha. This meshes well with the later tradition,
which frequently mentions listening to scripture at the
sräddha.
The shared trait of all the lists of Brahmins to be in-
vited to a ritual is learning, more specifically, the propri-
etary knowledge of the Brahmins. The Brahmanical au-
thors agree in their concern about the quality of invitees,
they must be well-versed in the Brahmanical scripture.
This concern about the Brahmins invited to a sräddha in-
tensifies in the later dharma literature, the Sastras. These
texts take a more prescriptive bent toward dharma, ad-
vocating a single view rather than the scholastic attitudes
of describing different views on dharma found in the
Dharmasütras. The Mänava Dharmasästray Manus Code
of Law, is the most influence of these and further illus-
trates the increase of this concern over time.
Qualities of the Brahmins in the Mänava
Dharmasästra
Whereas no Dharmasútra uses more than five sütras
to enumerate the positive qualities sought, Manu employs
twenty-one verses. The concerns are no different, but
Manu simply goes into greater detail on much of the same
concerns; his primary concern too is the learning of the
Brahmins invited to the sräddha. The lists of Brahmins
unfit for invitation are also considerably longer than his
predecessors’. While Gautama’s list— containing forty-
three types of people (GDhS 15.16-19)— dwarfs the lists
in other Dharmasütras, Manu lists ninety-six (MDhS
3.150-168), complete with a partial list of the effects of
giving food to such people (MDhS 3.174-182). The con­

cern over the quality of the Brahmins was such that Manu
felt the need to detail the negative results derived from
inviting such people. Giving to the children of wrongful
unions, i.e., mixed caste marriages, negate the benefits of
performing the ritual, as do traders. Others in the list
bring worse results. Certain unfit invitees negate the ef-
feet of those qualified Brahmins next to whom they are
seated at the sräddha or other ritual.8
Next Manu turns to those who, rather than negating
beneficial effects, cause detriment to the offering to the
ancestors. Food given to the seller of Soma is not food;
by the time it reaches the ancestors it is excrement (3.180).
The physician, the temple priest, and the usurer likewise
taint the offering made to them (3.180). This section re-
inforces the importance of the quality of the Brahmins
invited, as it is through them that the ancestors receive
the offerings. These specific lists often differ in the de-
tails, but they all share the notion that the recipient de-
termines the efficacy of the offering made to the anees-
tors, that is, that the mediator successfully effects the
transfer for which he is responsible.9
Given this sentiment and the value placed on learning,
the hyperbole surrounding the detriment of giving food
to someone ignorant of the Veda is not surprising. “A man
will have to eat as many red-hot spikes, spears, and iron
balls as rice balls that someone ignorant of the Veda eats
at his divine or ancestral offerings” (MDhS 3.133, Oliv-
elle).
As with the Soma seller and the physician, those ig-
norant of the Veda do not merely fail to mediate between
the performer of the sräddha and his ancestors, he actu-
ally taints the transfer, ruining the food that sustains the
ancestors. The importance of these qualifications is un-
derscored by the rule with which Manu concludes his sec-
tion on fit invitees.
A man who knows the Law must never probe into
the qualifications of a Brahmin at a rite to the gods;
when he undertakes an ancestral rite, however, he
should diligently probe into his qualifications.
MDhS 3.149 (Olivelle)
The ancestors depend on the oblations given in the sräd-
dha as food, one cannot be too careful then in assuring that
they receive it. Additionally, this points to the importance
and centrality of the ancestral rites in the householder tra-
dition; the role of mediator between the householder and
ancestors requires significant validation of the qualities of
the recipient.
Understanding the Brahmin’s role as mediator illumi-
nates the reason for this regulation. The Brahmins fed at
the divine rite do not actually mediate between the house-
holder and the gods; Agni does. The Brahmins that are
JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 )‫ (ו‬2CH2 ‫וו‬
fed are present merely to facilitate, to add a degree of aus-
piciousness, and to proclaim the endeavor a success (See
HGS 2.7.17.13). The Brahmins who stand in for the an-
cestors, however, are mediating for the ancestors directly.
Whereas one cannot question Agni’s authority to act as
mediator, the householder is enjoined to query the Brah-
min about his qualities to ensure that he is qualified to
act as mediator. The success of the rite that feeds the an-
cestors depends on it, as the above list of mishaps caused
by feeding the wrong persons shows.
This concern over the qualities of the mediator, seen
in both traditions, supports my argument that the sräd-
dha became the model for a new mode of religiosity—
valuing gifting especially— one that is constructed by the
ideologues of both traditions using these conceptions of
mediation. Specifically, the concern over the quality of
the invitees is, in the earliest stages, emphasized signifi-
cantly more in the ancestral rites, and the importance of
the qualities of the mediator, the recipient of gifts in the
subsequent tradition, increases over time.
This construction of a new model of religious expert
simultaneously reflected the authors’ conception of the
proper orientation to the universe it sought to manipu-
late. That is to say, that the qualities described as desir-
able reflected the authors’ conception of a proper medi-
ator. The role of mediator was contested by multiple
groups and ideologues in any one of those groups— be
it Buddhist, Brahmin, or Jain— had a vested interest in
defining the role of mediator in such a way as to advo-
cate their own ideological suppositions.10Authors in each
tradition valorize knowledge specifically valued by their
own tradition.
For example, we see in Manu s enumeration of those
Brahmins who purify the line of people among whom
they sit when fed at the sräddha a clear preference for
Vedic learning. (MDhS 3.183-186). The concern over the
recipient, and some of the details, match the Dharmasü-
tra lists of those who purify those whom they sit next to
in the line to be fed (See BDhS 2.14.2-3). As in the Dhar-
masütras, the most common attribute that distinguishes
one of these men is learning. Specifically, it is Vedic learn-
ing that set men apart as purifying. The long lists of those
who ruin the offering, referring as they do to people with-
out Vedic learning, clearly demonstrate the competitive
nature of ritual patronage. While the Brahmins and, as I
will argue presently, the Buddhists share a conception of
religious expert and occupy the same discursive space to
constitute the most appropriate person to fill this role,
they do so in a way that advocates their own brand so to
speak.
While sharing the emphasis on learning and moral
character found in the Brahmanical literature, Buddhist
12 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012
reflections on the proper religious expert value different
kinds of knowledge. In short, I hope to show that we can
locate in the discourse on the proper religious expert ex-
plicit competition for the patronage of the householder.11
To put it crassly, the Brahmins and the Buddhists are mar-
keting themselves as the heir to Agni.
Buddhist Efforts to Appropriate the Role
of Mediator
The success of Buddhism certainly follows from its sue-
cess in finding a role to fill in the social milieu of its time.
The central role for religious specialists in a ritual cultural
was the role of mediator, and Masefield argues forcefully
that the Buddhists made considerable effort to take on
this role.12 The discursive material composed with this
aim generally employs one or more of three tactics: 1. de-
value the Brahmin as an effective recipient; 2. substitute
the Buddha or the Sañgha for the older mediator, i.e., the
fire; and 3. set up the Sañgha as an effective recipient.13
The first is a general trend to undermine the authority of
the Buddhists’ rivals, the intellectual elites among Brah-
mins who claim special knowledge and moral superior-
ity and through those the role of mediator. This effort
operates on the same level as the Brahmanical effort to
define the appropriate invitee, that is, the Buddhists en-
gage the Brahmins in a character debate. The second tac-
tic involves substituting the Buddha for Agni, as the Brah-
mins did with the learned Brahmin in the domestic rites
to the ancestors. The third, similarly, involves a strategic
use of language and metaphor to transfer the power be-
fore associated with the fire to a human agent, specifi-
cally the Buddha— or the Sañgha in his place.
Undermining the Authority of Brahmins
The Buddhist perspective is available to us in the Pali
Canon. It is the earliest collection of Buddhist texts and
is a reflection of the canon first written down in the first
century BCE (Norman 1983: 5). There was certainly a
long period of development before its commitment to
writing (Hinüber 1996: 5), but the manner and degree of
success in preservation is a controversial subject.14 From
the Pali Canon I draw primarily upon texts of the Sutta
Pitaka, and the choice of the material reflects the avail-
able sources that evidence concern over the ancestors and
their propitiation. Of particular interest with respect to
ancestral rites is the Petavatthu, a collection of ghost sto-
ries aimed at warning readers about the dangers of im-
moral behavior. These didactic tales aim to reinforce the
religious practice of giving, particularly to the Sañgha,
the Buddhist monastic community, but they clearly echo
the sräddha and can be read with an eye to revealing cul-
tural assumptions about and practices aimed at the de-
ceased. The Petavatthu exists today imbedded in its com-
mentary, the Paramatthadïpanï of Dhammapäla. The
Petavatthu dates to around the second century BCE
(Obeyesekere 2002: 139), but the commentary of
Dhammapäla dates to somewhere around the seventh cen-
tury CE (Cousins 1972: 159).15
In the light of the strategic effort on the part of the
Brahmin authors to appropriate the role of mediator, we
can more fully understand the purpose of the many dis-
paraging comments about contemporary Brahmins in the
Pali Canon. The authors commonly compared contem-
porary Brahmins to the Sages of old; the Brahmins never
came out of this looking good. In the Dïgha Nikäyay the
Buddha upbraids the contemporary Brahmin for, among
other things, merely memorizing verses and claiming the
status of a Sage thereby, caring more for grooming and
clothing than character, and being overly concerned with
food or women (D i.l04f). The Buddha’s admonition of
the Brahmins emphasizes their standard of living; he pur-
ports to hold the Brahmin up to his own standard, and
then shows that he is lacking.
The comparisons sometimes employed more direct at-
tacks, openly criticizing the Brahmins for lacking the
virtues they themselves held most high. In this passage
Kaccäna addresses a rowdy group of pupils, whose teacher
is the Brahmin Lohicca.
Foremost in virtue were the men of old,
Those Brahmins who remembered ancient rules.
In them well guarded were the doors of sense.
They had achieved the mastery of wrath.
In meditation and the Norm they took delight,
Those Brahmins who remembered ancient rules.
But these backsliders with their “Let us recite,”
Drunk with the pride of birth, walk wrongfully.
O’ercome by wrath, exceeding violent,
They come to loss ‘mongst weak and strong alike.
Vain is the penance of the uncontrolled,
Empty as treasure gotten in a dream. S iv.117
(Woodward 1996)
The Buddha harkens back to a better time, when Brah-
mins were virtuous, then opines about the lack of virtue
in contemporary Brahmins. Those Brahmins, the back-
sliders of today, fail in their attempts to live up to that
standard. The phrase japämase, “Let us recite” is clearly
a sarcastic reference to the recitation of the Veda.16 The
Buddha disparages the values held most high by the Brah-
mins and criticizes their preoccupation with the impor-
tance given to “Brahmins by birth.” The Buddhist author
undermines the Brahmanical authority by devaluing their

claims to moral character and religious learning, substi-
tuting their own definition of the proper values in the
process. The Buddhists seem to be reacting directly to the
Brahmanical discourse about the qualifications for ritual
expert, questioning the virtues and learning that the Brah-
mins extolled in their own texts.
The importance of the qualities of the recipient of a
charitable act is of supreme importance. Thus the aim
of this systematic discrediting of the contemporary
Brahmins is clear: the Buddhist authors tried to estab-
lish the Sañgha as the preferable choice as a recipient of
meritorious giving. They do this by employing sacrifi-
cial and using metaphors that put the Sañgha on par
with the older mediator, Agni, or the contemporary
ones, Brahmins.
Substitutes for Agni
The Buddhist authors employ “vocabulary and con-
cepts borrowed from the Vedic tradition to attribute
meaning to the act of giving” to the Sañgha (Egge 2002:
19). In doing so they equate the giving of alms to the
Sañgha with sacrifice and the rewards of the former are
implied to be equal to or better than the latter. Like the
Brahmins, the Buddhist authors looked to the ritual fire
as an exemplar intermediary. The Buddha is identified
with the sacrificial fire in the Theragäthä, “I sacrifice to
the fire worthy of dakkhinä; I venerate the Tathägata”
(Thag 343cd). This formula relies on the ideology of
gifting; the dakkhinä — from the Sanskrit daksinä, the
Vedic sacrificial fee/gift— becomes the model for the
later emphasis on giving. Additionally, this parallels the
Brahmanical substitution of the Brahmin for the fire
seen above in the sräddha ritual of the Äpastamba Dhar-
masütra (ÄpDhS 2.16.3).
Beyond this substitution, which employs the tropes
and metaphors of ritual to facilitate the transition, the
later tradition evidences the simple assertion that the Bud-
dha or the Sañgha are the proper recipients of gifts, par-
ticularly of gifts to the deceased. In the “Ghost Story of
the Biscuit Doll” from the Petavatthu (Pv 1.4), the author
indicates that gifts made to deceased relatives, if given to
the Buddhist monastic community, will benefit the in-
tended recipient.17
10 With whatever concern the liberal one should
give a gift to those previous deceased or also to the
deities of the homestead;
13 This gift is made, firmly established in the
Sañgha, will benefit them immediately for a long
time. Pv 1.4.10, 13 (Horner and Gehman 1974)
JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012 13
More explicit is another story from the Petavatthu,
“The Ghosts Outside the Walls” (Pv 1.5). In this story,
a king is haunted by distant relatives, who tell him to
make offerings on their behalf. He invites the Buddha,
but forgets to dedicate the meal to them, and they fail
to receive the benefits. The Buddha advises him to re-
peat the offering and to dedicate the offering made to
the Buddha to his ancestors. The Buddha explicitly
states his role as mediator between the living and the
dead, between a householder and a supernatural being,
using the same refrain as in the “Ghost Story of the Bis-
cuit Doll.”
The nexus of this theological understanding of the ef-
ficaciousness of giving gifts rests on the qualities of the
recipient, the Buddha being the most qualified of all re-
cipients, as is shown throughout the Pali Canon (Amore
1971 passim). That notion often finds expression in the
metaphor of a field.
The Field of Merit
As in Brahmanical thought, the idea that the benefit
yielded from a gift rests on the merit of the recipient finds
repeated expression in the Buddhist materials
(Dhammapäla 1989: xxvii-xxviii). In the Petavatthu we
find this sentiment expressed in the mouth of Añkura,
who is suffering due to his lack of gifts.
As a seed planted on a sterile field, even many
(seeds),
neither becomes abundant fruit nor please the
planter,
Just like that a plentiful gift, bestowed upon one of
bad moral character
Neither becomes abundant fruit nor pleases the
giver. Pv 2.9.68-70
This metaphor is shared by Brahmin and Buddhist au-
thors alike; Manu expresses it this way.18
142 As a sower reaps no harvest when he sows his
seeds on barren soil, so a giver earns no reward when
he gives his oblation to a man ignorant of the Veda.
143 A sacrificial gift given to a learned man accord-
ing to the rule makes both the givers and the receivers
partake of its rewards both here and in the hereafter.
MDhS 3.142-143 (Olivelle 2000)
That both a Buddhist and a Brahmin author employ this
metaphor is not surprising in itself, but it does strengthen
the sense that both authors occupy a single discursive
space; they are engaged in the same exercise of ideology
construction, sometimes using the same language (See
Masefield in Dhammapäla 1989).
14 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012
Another example of this overlap in argumentative style
and substance occurs in the formula that describes the Bud-
dha as the unsurpassed field of merit, clearly derived from
the above metaphor. In the Suttanipäta the Buddha is called
“the unsurpassed field of merit, the sacrificial recipient for
all the world,” and “what is given to the Blessed One yields
great fruit” (Sn 486). The analogy of the field and seed is
combined with the sacrificial imagery; the threads are
woven together and the result is a formula that emphasizes
the effectiveness of the Buddha, and by extension the
Sañgha, as mediator. By combining the metaphor of the
seed with the ritual terminology the Buddhist author taps
into two themes that resonate strongly in this culture; the
effect connects the Buddha— and the Sañgha— with the
efficacious modes of mediation in a powerful way.
The formula occurs in many places throughout the Pali
Canon, in a consistent fashion, for example: “The Assem-
bly of Disciples of the Lord is worthy of sacrifice, worthy
of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of veneration,
an unsurpassed merit-field for the world” (A 1.208). I sug-
gest this formula is constructed to appropriate all avenues
of mediation, all the possible ways that a religious expert
could mediate for the householder. The word ähuneyyo,
worthy of sacrifice, shifts the offering made in sacrifice to
offerings made unto the Buddha and his Sañgha. The term
pahüneyyOj worthy of hospitality, indicates that the Sañgha,
not only Brahmins, are also worthy of hospitality and, more
significantly, are capable of bestowing the merit derives
from offerings hospitality. The third term, dakkhineyyo,
worthy of offerings, performs the same substitution, but
for offerings, including sräddhay as I will argue presently.
The term ähuneyyo , worthy to be offered to, derived
from the same verbal root, huy as the Sanskrit term äha-
vantya , the name of the eastern fire of the Vedic ritual;
this explicitly associates this aspect of the field of merit
formula with the Buddhist efforts to substitute the Sañgha
for Agni as mediator. Here the deployment of sacrificial
terminology is most clear; the verbal root ä-hu is central
to the language used to describe sacrifice. The Buddhist
authors cleverly constructed this formula, to put it crudely,
to advertise their equality with, if not superiority to, Brah-
mins as effective recipients of all sorts of religious offer-
ings: One stop for all your merit-making needs.
The Buddhist formulation explicitly covers the gamut
of ritual obligations inherent to the householder life and
assures the giver of the efficacy of offerings made to the
Buddha. The competing claims of ritual efficacy sur-
rounding the ancestral rites are surely too complex to ad-
dress in this essay,19but a focus on one particular aspect
of the complex factors involved in understanding the Brah-
manical and Buddhist claims to efficacy seems prudent.
The ideologues in both traditions challenged the efficacy
of rituals performed by ritual experts in the other tradi-
tion. The Buddhist tradition did this by suggesting that
even if one accepted the standards that Brahmanical au-
thors suggested for inviting religious experts to the sräd-
dha, then the rite would be wanting. The diatribes on
Brahmanical corruption indicate the fall from grace. The
contemporary Brahmins are backsliders, prone to vio-
lence, and produce no benefit for their patrons (S iv.117,
seen above). The Buddha, in contrast, is the perfect ve-
hiele for an offering. The efficacy of offerings made to him
is described in the tradition, as seen in the Petavatthu dis-
cussed above. And the Brahmanical authors made simi-
lar claims.
While there is no explicit construction of the perfect
mediator in the Brahmanical tradition, this is most likely
due to the Brahmins self-conception of themselves as the
hegemonic discourse, which would never deign to admit
to competition. The many descriptions of the perfect in-
vitee make clear the qualities sought, but the lists, in-
creasing over time, of those who, if invited to a sräddha>
spell disaster for the ritual better demonstrate the warn-
ing against inferior ritual experts, who, if invited to a
sräddha threaten the efficacy of the rites. The list of those
who corrupt the offerings— the Soma seller, the doctor,
the nagna, ‘naked’— all point to the dangers of not se-
lecting a learned Brahmin to invite to a sräddha. These
make explicit claims about not only the efficacy— food
offered to a Brahmin who does not keep a vow does not
make it to ones ancestors for it is eaten by fiends (MDhS
3.170)— but also of the danger of choosing the wrong
invitee— Manu has an extensive list of the dangers of of-
fering to someone besides a learned Brahmin. Discus-
sions of who is held to be efficacious (the efficiens in
Quack and Tölermanns terms) revolve around the reli-
gious expert employed in the rite by the householder.
But the competition to demonstrate their own efficacy,
and call into question that of others, is clear in the texts of
both traditions. The degree of overlap in the approach,
language, and concerns of both traditions’ texts strongly
suggests that the Brahmin and Buddhist authors both con-
structed the notion of a human mediator from similar pre-
conceptions. Further, both actively sought to construct the
category in a way that favored their assumption of the role
of religious expert, i.e., they were doing the same thing,
with the same tools, namely, trying to woo the householder
as patron.
The competitive nature of the construction of religious
ritual obligations must inform our understanding of the
motives behind this innovation in the tradition of anees-
tor worship. The Brahmanical lists of qualifications for
sräddha invitees clearly include some and excludes cer-
tain others. The notion of cultural capital, an issue raised

in the panel upon which this essay draws, may well help
us understand better the reasons for the innovations in
both Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions.
The Brahmanical and Buddhist authors shared certain
assumptions of ritual obligations in ancient South Asia,
and authors of both traditions sought to define which
forms of social capital are more effective. For example,
they both value knowledge, but these discourses seek to
define which types of knowledge are efficacious and which
are not. The Brahmins drew upon the older Vedic tradi-
tion, simultaneously devaluing the form of religious ex-
pression, while heightening the sense that the knowledge
expressed therein was of inestimable value. Traphagan’s
suggestion in reaction to Roemer’s paper that improvisa-
tion is central to the creation of habitus seems germane
here (Traphagan, this volume). The Brahmanical tradi-
tion innovated within the tradition, improvising upon
ritual expressions from older models, but retained, even
strengthened, the value of tradition knowledge, despite
rejecting some external forms of Vedic ritual, including
the elimination of Vedic priests. The Buddhists similarly
interpret, though in ways at odds with the Brahmanical
tradition, that same Vedic tradition, more explicitly re-
jecting the external form of Vedic ritual, but produce a
rather different sense of knowledge from the sources avail-
able to both intellectual traditions. Traphagan’s example
from Jazz seems pertinent here too; both Brahmanical
and Buddhist authors work within the same general tra­
Notes
1. While the Brahmanical texts were aimed at Brahmin house-
holders, and the Pâli Canon frequently identifies a protagonist as a
brahmanagahapatika, a Brahmin householder, there were certainly
householders o f other varnasy the many kings who host the Bud-
dha in the Pali Canon are but one example. Therefore, we must dis-
tinguish between grhapati as a designation for a married man who
engages in religious rituals and grhastha as an äsrama, ‘life stage,’
which is a theological category operative within the confines o f the
Brahmanical tradition. In this essay, I use the term householder in
its broader compass and not to refer to the householder äsrama.
2. It is impossible to determine with any degree of confidence
the influence o f the householder as patron on the development of
the on-going construction o f the householder ideal, but the in-
creased centrality o f the householder from the period under dis-
cussion in this paper into the classical form of Hinduism expressed
in the Epics and Puränas certainly suggests that the ideologues com-
posing these texts were marketing themselves to the householder.
I have in mind here the way that Bailey and Mabbett conceive of
marketing in early Buddhism, “By marketing we understand the
deliberate application of a panoply o f techniques to parade, in an
intentionally persuasive manner, the ideology each group claimed
to embody and its corresponding lifestyle” (2003: 109). We must
take into account here the audiences of the texts that I propose to
read as marketing. Certainly the Brahmins did not write for a gen-
JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012 15
dition, ritual in ancient South Asia, yet produce radically
different performances.
The texts available to us seek to convince educated re-
ligious actors of the time that the experts of that tradi-
tion are the best conveyors of cultural capital. Traphagan
is absolutely correct when he says that ancestor rituals are
“as much focused on the expression of love and caring
for both living and dead as they are about venerating those
who have gone before” and that “ancestor rituals often
represent a framework through which capital is publically
displayed” (Traphagan, this volume). The lengthy dis-
courses aimed at convincing contemporary householders
that the author’s tradition offers the most efficacious rit-
ual— and often that the competitor’s rituals often dam-
age ones goals— depend upon the householder’s invest-
ment in these rites on both these levels.
In the end, the fundamental shift in the conception of
ancestor worship goes beyond the innovation in expres-
sions of veneration for the dead; it shaped the funda-
mental nature of religiosity in South Asia. The shift within
the broad tradition of religious expression in ancient South
Asia from the fulfillment of ritual obligations through the
mediation of a divine actor to the accomplishment of the
same ritual obligations through a human mediator is pred-
icated upon the same shift effected within the discourse
on ancestor worship. The discourse on ancestor worship
fundamentally altered the manner in which South Asians
acquire, manipulate, and display cultural capital.
eral audience, nor, likely, did the Buddhists ideologues. But I as-
sert that we can understand the concerns that underlie the expres-
sions discussed in this essay as reflective o f a certain appropriative
stance toward the householder and indicating a mindset that in-
deed includes marketing as Bailey and Mabbett use the term.
3. The causes o f this transition are not apparent, but the tex-
tualization o f the domestic rites in the Grhyasütras in the middle
o f the first millennium BCA seems to play some part in the trans-
formation o f religiosity in ancient India. The tradition o f domes-
tic rites is much older than the texts that describe them; references
to domestic rituals in the Brähmanas attest to a lively domestic rit-
ual life (Gonda 1977: 547, Oldenberg 1967: xv-xxii), but Olden-
berg has shown that no sustained literature on the household rit-
ual predated the Grhyasütras (Oldenberg 1967: xviii). Both
domestic and srauta traditions o f ancestor worship thrived within
the same larger tradition but the domestic rites only came to have
a more central place in the textual expression o f religious practice
with the composition o f the Grhyasütras. The centrality o f the do-
mestic rites in the later tradition attests to impact of the construc-
tion o f a domestic ritual tradition that draw on both srauta and
grhya ritual practice.
4. Masefield (Dhammapäla 1989) addresses this trend in his
“Translator’s Introduction” to the Paramatthadïpanï näma Vimä-
navatthu-atthakathä. Egge (2002) addresses it as well from a slightly
16 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012
different angle. While Masefield addresses the role o f Buddhist uses
of sacrifice in the development o f the doctrine o f the transfer o f
merit, Egge traces the role o f däna, religious giving, in the devel-
opment o f the Buddhist notion o f karma.
5. It must be emphasized that this is not a significantly larger
group o f men. The role o f religious expert is still closely guarded
by those educated Brahmins who were composing these texts or
engaged in the intellectual construction o f religious identity found
in those texts.
6. VDhS 16.33, which describes the punishment for perjury as
including shaving o f the head, may indicate another possibility:
criminals. But the common factor here should be clear: both stand
outside normal social parameters, whether voluntarily or not.
7. See also ÂpDhS 2.17.22.
8. Throughout Manu makes it clear that the rules about who
is invited apply equally to rituals oriented toward the gods and
those oriented toward the ancestors with the phrase daive pitrye ca.
9. While this essay is focused on the role o f the religious expert
in making the ritual efficacious, the traditions does recognize other
elements in the ritual to contribute to the efficacy of the ritual in
different ways. The timing, location, and materials are discussed in
detail in the Grhyasütras, though by the time o f the Dharmasütras
most o f these are so fixed as to escape mention in the texts. The one
exception is the increased concern over which meats will be made
in the sräddha and how long such offerings will last the ancestors.
10. In this I think that Bruce Lincoln’s thoughts on myth are
equally applicable to texts that describe culture with a prescriptive
bent, “myth has tremendous importance and is often the site o f
contestation between groups and individuals whose differing ver-
sions o f social ideals and reality are inscribed within the rival ver-
sions o f the myths they recount” (1991: 123).
11. The com petition is not only between the Brahmins and
non-Brahmins, but amongst Brahmins with different ideas o f the
religious life as well. One must consider the competition between
the ritual priest and the renuncíate in order to have a fuller pic-
ture. The Brahmanical ascetics’ attacks on the ritual institution bear
many similarities to the Buddhist attacks.
12. Dhammpäla 1989, See also Egge 2002, Amore 1971,
Michaels and Pierce 1997, and Holt 1981. For a later perspective
on the role o f mediation in Buddhism, see Holt 2007, in which he
Abbreviations
Λ Anguttara Nikäya
ÄpDhS Äpastamba Dharmasütra
ÄpGS Äpastamba Grhyasütra
ÄsGS Äsvaläyana Grhyasütra
BDhS Baudhäyana Dharmasütra
GDhS Gautama Dharmasütra
HGS Hiranyakesin Grhyasütra
MBh Mahäbhärata
MDhS Mänava Dharmasästra
suggests that monks o f contemporary Sri Lanka “do not in any way
offer to broker relations between the living and the dead in a priestly
guise,” instead this role is taken up in the “informal sector” by
priestly practitioners in independently operated shrine (330-31).
13. I do not mean to imply that acquiring the role o f mediator
was the only motivation for any o f the following material. Bud-
dhist material in general has many different possibly implications
and seeking one aim o f a text is a mistake. Additionally, many of
these passages have been interpreted by traditional and modern
scholars to have different primary aims. My point here is to show
that each o f these passages has implications in understanding the
role o f mediation in their discourse.
14. Some argue for a considerable amount o f influence from
Pali grammarians o f the twelfth century (Norman 1983: 6); oth-
ers suggest we can know little for certain of the Pâli Canon before
the redaction known to Buddhaghosa in the fifth or sixth century
CE (Schopen 1997: 24). It is difficult to accept this level of skepti-
cism, since other material datable to a period before the fifth cen-
tury CE demonstrates an awareness o f the Pâli Canon. This does
not, however, rule out modifications after this period, but most of
the material would have been fixed in a recognizable form.
15. The dating o f Dhammapäla is very complex. In fact,
Cousins posits three different authors for the works generally as-
cribed to Dhammapäla, one in the sixth century, one probably in
the seventh century CE, and the last circa 960 CE (Cousins 1972:
163 and passim).
16. For the use of humor in Buddhist texts, particularly in dis-
paraging Brahmanical ideologies, see Gombrich 1992.
17. The frame story given in the commentary informs the reader
that a householder, Anäthapindika by name, promises his distressed
daughter to give alms on behalf o f her dough-doll when it is acci-
dently broken. Horner points out that the introductory material is
commentary, but then suggests that that does not necessarily mean
it is much later. She fails to make a more definitive statement about
the relationship o f the prose introduction to the verses (Horner
and Gehman 1974: iiix).
18. This metaphor occurs a number of times in the subsequent
literature, e.g., MBh 13.90.37.
19. For more on the complexity o f studying ritual efficacy, see
Quack and Töbelmann 2010.
Pv Petavatthu
RV Rg Veda
S Samyutta Nikäya
SB Satapatha Brähmana
SGS Sänkhäyana Grhyasütra
Sn Suttanipäta
Thag Theragäthä
VDhS Vasistha Dharmasütra

References
Amore, R. C. 1971. The Concept and Practice of Doing
Merit in Early Theraväda Buddhism. Dissertation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Bailey, Greg and Ian Mabbett. 2003. The Sociology of
Early Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cousins, Lance S. 1972. “Dhammapäla and the Tika
Literature.” Religion 2 159-165.
Dhammapäla. 1989. Elucidation of the Intrinsic Mean-
ing So Named The Commentary on the Vimäna Sto-
ries (Paramatthadïpanï näma Vimänavatthu-
atthakathä). Translated by Peter Masefield assisted
by N. A. Jayawickrama. Sacred Books of the Buddhists
Vol. XXXV. London: Pali Text Society.
. 1980. Elucidation of the Intrinsic Meaning So
Named The Commentary on the Peta-Stories (Para-
matthadïpanï näma Petavatthu-atthakathä). Trans-
lated by U Ba Kyaw, edited and annotated by Peter
Masefield. Sacred Books of the Buddhists Vol. XXXIV.
London: Pali Text Society.
Egge, James R. 2002. Religious Giving and the Invention
of Karma in Theraväda Buddhism. Richmond, Sur-
rey: Curzon.
Falk, Harry. 1988. “Vedische Opfer im Pali-Kanon.”
Bulletin Dyetudes Indiennes 6 225-254.
Gombrich, Richard. 1992. “The Buddhas Book of
Genesis.” Indo-Iranian Journal 35 159-178.
Gonda, Jan. 1977. Ritual Sütras. History of Indian Liter-
ature Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.
Hinüber, Oskar von. 1996. A Handbook of Päli Litera-
ture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Holt. John Clifford. 2007. “Gone but Not Departed:
The Dead among the Living in Contemporary Bud-
dhist Sri Lanka.” In The Buddhist Dead: Practices,
Discourses, Representations, edited by Bryan J.
Cuevas and Jacqueline I. Stone. Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawai’i Press, 326-344.
---------. 1981. “Assisting the Dead by Venerating the
Living. Merit Transfer in Early Buddhist Tradition.”
Numen 28 1-28;
Horner, I. B. and H. S. Gehman, trans. 1974 (1942).
The Minor Anthologies of the Pali Canon Part IV:
Vimänavathu: Stories of the Mansions and Petavatthu:
Stories of the Departed. London: Pali Text Society.
Biographical Sketch
Matthew Sayers is Assistant Professor of Religion at
Lebanon Valley College. His work focuses on the anees-
JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012 17
Lincoln, Bruce. 1991. “The Two Paths.” In Death, War,
and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 119-127.
Michaels, Axel and Philip Pierce. 1997. “Gift and Re-
turn Gift, Greeting and Return Greeting in India:
On a Consequential Footnote by Marcel Mauss.”
Numen 44 242-269.
Norman, K. R. 1983. Pâli Literature Including the
Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the
Hïnayâna Schools of Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Obeyesekere, Gananath. 2002. Imagining Karma: Ethi-
cal Transformation in Amerindian, Buddhist, and
Greek Rebirth. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Oldenberg, Hermann, trans. 1967 (1886-1892). The
Grhya-sütra: Rules ofVedic Domestic Ceremonies.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Olivelle, Patrick, trans. 2004. The Law Code of Manu: A
New Translation Based on the Critical Edition. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
, ed. 2000. Dharmasütras: The Law Codes of
Äpastamba, Gautama, Baudhäyana, and Vasistha.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Quack, Johannes and Paul Töbelmann. 2010. “Ques-
tioning ‘Ritual Efficacy’ ” Journal of Ritual Studies 24
(1) 13-28.
Schopen, Gregory. 1997. Two Problems in the History
of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/Monk Distinction
and the Doctrines of the Transfer of Merit.” In
Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers
on the Archaeology Epigraphy and Texts of Monastic
Buddhism in India. Honolulu: The University of
Hawai’i Press, 23-55.
Woodward, F. L., trans. 2000-2001 (1932-1933). The
Book of the Gradual Sayings (Anguttara-Nikäya) or
More-numbered Suttas. Vol I-II. London: Pali Text
Society.
, trans. 1996 (1936). The Book of the Gradual
Sayings (Anguttara-Nikäya) or More-numbered Sut-
tas. Vol V. London: Pali Text Society.
, trans. 1996. (1927). The Book of Kindred Say-
ings (Samyutta-Nikäya) or Grouped Suttas. Vol. IV.
London: Pali Text Society.
tral rites in ancient Brahmanical texts, particularly the
development of the sräddha. He also works on the an-
18 JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 26 (1) 2012

cient pilgrimage place associated with the performance terested in the interaction of the Hindu and Buddhist re-
of the tïrtha-sràddha— the pilgrimage ancestral rite— ligious traditions.
Gayä, located in Bihar in northern India. He is also in-
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.