LlBRATING-39
BRAHMANISM AS A COMMERCE

The original arrangement of the Devas was perfect. Society was a lager family. The division of work was based on the golden principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’ If gathering and hunting was primitive communism, intuitively followed, initial agrarian arrangement attributed to Manu was early communism repeated mechanically with additions and amplifications in Hindu law books. In its pristine simplicity it appears to be both ideal and practical. In fact it was practiced for millennia till it was disturbed by the crafty Asuras who high jacked and modified it to suit their ascendency.

In the older scheme no one was ‘the other’. There was no superiority and inferiority. Of course due regard for age, and due respect for the brave youngsters who were their own dear ones was shown with pride and affection. The Kulpati, prototype of kings and patrons, of course enjoyed some authority including the power to punish in case of grave defaults.

The problem arose with the penetration into elders rank of the ‘wisemen from the wilderness. They appear to have claimed supernatural wisdom by which they could protect from the enemies and diseases, could enhance production and appease the benevolent gods through satiation. This in our surmise, was the beginning of ritual yajna, emulating agricultural operations combined with offering to please the deities through fire but allocating major share for them under this pretext.

They had good explanations for everything. Their power could be compromised in case they soiled their hands participating in any agricultural activity. They could instead promote production through simulation and symbolisms. They had devices to assemble the forces of nature per their wish. The smoke of the yajna rising to sky acted as messenger to invite gods, it also acted as carrier of oblation to them. It appears there was some confusion as to the propriety: should they be invited to attend the feast or they be served where they were. In the first scheme they as well as the manes were invited and offered their seat (सीद श्येनो न योनिमा।). In the latter Agni as carrier (वह्नि) carried their share (देवभाक्) to them.

Parallel to yajna there arose another method to please them. Offering the Brahmns, the fire incarnate, the choicest food to be consumed by them on behalf of the gods and thus satiate them. Whatever the Brahmins consumed reached the manes and the deities as it did when offered directly to Agni.

Ritual yajna appears to have been established as early as 7000 BCE, as a rough estimate, based on the fact that initially ghrit produced from goat milk (आज्य) was offered as oblation. The ghee as oblation is continued to be called ajya even though now it was extracted from cow milk.

Cattle domestication marked the beginning of the Manav yuga, or Martya yuga somewhere around 5000 BCE. The distinction has been drawn on the basis that the Devas are ajya-loving while martyas gavya-loving.

Due to a large gap of some five thousand years when the history was recorded for the first time much confusion was generated, even so remarkable clarity if found in the records not to allow us go astray. Look at the following observations:
1. Earlier the gods were mortals likewise at that time the Brahmins were immortal(मर्त्या ह वा अग्रे देवा आसु:, स यत एव ब्राह्मणापुरथा अमृता आसु:, श. ११.२.३.६ ).
2. Both Devas and humans lived together (उभये ह वा इदमग्रे सहासुर्देवाश्च मनुष्याश्च, श. २.३.४.४
3. Those born earlier were Devas, and those born later were men (प्राचीन जनना वै देवा: प्रतीचीनजनना मनुष्या:, श.७.४.२.४०).
4. Men are just as the Devas (देवानां वै विधामनु मनुष्या:, ६.७.४.९).
5. This ajya is the dearest abode of Devas (एतद्वै देवाना प्रियं धाम यत् आज्यम्, श. १.३.२.१७).

The Devas settle in wall-protected vaikunthas (settlements which were safe from Asuras, but kep their interest alive, in land produce. Only after paying their share could the mortals consume what they produced. We may note the beginning of absentee-landlordism in this transfer of roles. The erstwhile landlords switched to trade and settled in cities of some sort perhaps planned and inhabited by their likes, prohibiting entry of common men for security reason, but they realised their share in produce. By the time of the Rigveda this system had been thoroughly established. ‘Indra, the all powerful was the lord of land, the Maruts the tillers ( इन्द्र: आसीत सीरपति: शतक्रतु: कीनाश: आसन मरुत: सुदानव।). On crucial points we find reference to tillers and labourers as our men, a clear hiatus between work force and the masters.

But our interest lies in the fact that the elders in the old scheme had not to bother for food and care, nor were they alienated from the property. Remaining idle, they could be the real masters of the land worked by their offsprings, whereas this new Brahmanical section did owe nothing. It had neither any interest in possessing land and produce anything because of the taboos honoured by them, nor others could take them as intimately as they cared for their elders. Possessing nothing and eager to have the best they had to resort to such multifarious tricks which reduced Brahmanism into commercial venture sans labour, risk and investment. It turned out to be fraud glamorised. The details must be examined in another note.