________________
Albrecht Wezler
The warrior taking to fight in fear
425
its efficacy as means of threatening presupposes or implies the theory of rebirth and karmic retribution as connected with it. All it presupposes is, as has already been stated, the belief in an afterlife and, of course, in its being influenced or even entirely framed by the effects of one's own good or bad deeds (including ritual activity), and such an afterlife can be, and was in fact in early Vedic times, conceived of as a single one.
On the other hand, it has to be admitted that the idea expressed in M. 7.94 and 95 does not entirely preclude the possibility of being nevertheless based on the theory of rebirth. In any case, and this is of essential importance in this connection, it was open to an interpretation, or re-interpretation, along the lines of this theory, at least in so far as the 'result' is concerned, i.e. the fact of one's having a certain quantity of duskyta or sukta, - not, of course, as regards the manner by which this was 'gained'. But as it is clearly the procedure on which emphasis lies in the two Manu verses, and not so much on consequence(s), it remains difficult to regard the latter interpretation, though theoretically possible, as also probable, and the radical solution chosen by Medh. etc." seems to confirm this doubt.
ests itself hence is the assumption that if at all the idea expressed in M. 7.94 and 95 continued to be an effective threat in later times, then this was possible first of all because the group to which it was addressed regarded, or continued to regard, the cffect of good and bad deeds as something which can pass over from one person to another in toto or perhaps also partially, i.e. that this group did not share the view of karma as a strictly individual and unalienable possession, or at least did not regard it as valid in each and every case. In this connection one cannot but recall the particular ksatriya form of faith in life after death, viz. that of going to the indraloka upon falling in battle. Though apparently attested in its elaborate form in the Epics only, clearly this belief has its origin in Vedic ideas about heaven; indeed, it was still a living faith in far later times as can be seen e.g. in the Niti
mayakha, and there is no indication whatsoever that it was then taken only metaphorically or allegorically. There is therefore some likelihood that the group of the ksatriyas was markedly 'conservative' also as regards their ideas about the consequences of a disloyal act such as taking to flight in fear, that they kept to their own 'sacred tradition and that this is the reason why we find these ideas stated in M. 7.94 and 95. In passing it may be noted that the relation to the indraloka conception deserves attention for another reason also; for M. 7.94 and 95 seem to answer the question what happens to those who - otherwise than the ideal warrior - are not slain in battle and do not hence go to heaven, but are slain while taking to flight". Perhaps this is also the clue to a full understanding of the fact that the two verses only consider the death of a parāvítta, and not his escape
4.5. It remains to be seen whether this ksatriya traditionalism is somehow connected with the old rivalry, or rather antagonism, between the warriors and the Brahmins. The difficulties one is confronted with in gaining a clearer understanding, historically or otherwise, are considerable at this point, and this is partially so because there is a gap in our knowledge; for the fact is that, as far as I can see, not much research has been done as to the general problem of the most probably various and complex) reasons which led an Indian group to stick to a particular 'old' idea although the idea has elsewhere and even generally become obsolete, i.e. has been virtually superseded by a 'new' one. There fore all I can offer in the present essay are a few suggestions which may prove useful to further research on this problem.
If my proposal is accepted that the idea expressed in M. 7.94 and 95 is originally of ksatriya provenience and continued to appeal
79. Loc. cit. (cf. fn. 72); see also KANE, op. cit., loc. cit. (cf. fn. 73).
80. On this ksatriya ideal see e.g. HOPKINS, op. cit. (cffr. 70), p. 186 ft., K. V. Rangaswami Alyangar's 'Introduction p. 73 t. to his edition of the Krtyakalpataru, Vol. XI: Rajadharmakanda, Baroda, 1943 and P.V. KANE op. cit. (cf. fn. 73), P. 57 f.
81. According to some sources (cf. e.g. P.V. KANE, op. cit., p. 211 and cf. also fn. 68a) they go to hell, and this it is which M. 7.94 and 95 also ultimately amount to in all probability,
82. It is of some consequence also for the question (discussed in $1.4) as to what is the grammatical subject of M. 7.94 and 95.
T1. Not to forget Sankara's apparent uneasiness, on which see fn. 58
78. A particularly well-known piece of evidence for this idea is Nalopakhyana 2.15 t. (=Mbh. 3.51.15 f.).