Bronkhorst on 'How the Brahmins won.'

Prof. Johannes Bronkhorst's book How the Brahmins Won: From Alexander to the Guptas 'concentrates on the extraordinary success story of Brahmanism, which developed from a movement in danger of extinction during the last centuries before the Common Era into one that, in less than a millennium, succeeded in imposing its imprint on the Indian subcontinent and much of Southeast Asia, and did this without the help of a conquering army or an all-powerful empire. Religious conversion cannot have played a role, for one could not convert to Brahmanism. This book seeks to understand how the Brahmins did it'
Lots of people all over the place at different times have converted to being Brahmans, just as lots of people, in India, suddenly decided they were Syeds- i.e. descendants of Islam's Prophet. Similarly there are some Mizos in the North East who suddenly discovered they were from a lost tribe of Israel and decided to make Aliyah on that basis.

Though currently a claimant to the vacant Throne of France- by reason of my 100 percent pure Bourbon blood- I drink a lot of Jake Daniels- I am a Brahmin myself and so I can tell you how the Brahmins won. They got married and had babies. But they were as poor as shit. To survive, they taught their babies to chant ancestral texts which were composed in Sanskrit. If they lacked any other means of livelihood, they could get a little food by doing so from charitable people. Of course, there were other poor people chanting ancestral texts in other languages.  It made sense for 'lateral integration' in this service industry to occur. Where it successfully maintained a niche, an endogamous 'jati' sprang up and fanned out geographically. What created the illusion of a 'racial' hegemonic caste was the persistence of a growing sense of a common cultural heimat- Indianness or 'Hindutva'- which had its own evolving lingua francas based on common Classical templates.

Since synthetic 'Classical' Sanskrit solved a coordination problem for intellectual exchange over a wide area, some of the kids, who would otherwise make a living as priests offering cheap household and other ritual services to agriculturists. had a lower opportunity cost, and thus comparative advantage, in themselves becoming officials or intellectuals. Thus, there was a substantial and spreading class which kept up a little of their priestly training just in case they had to flee to some rural redoubt. The other thing they wanted to flee was poverty- which is caused by poor people having babies like crazy. Thus they were genuinely drawn to monastic religions because they give you an excuse to avoid marriage and spending the rest of your short life wiping small but very shitty bums. To be a Professor at a place like Nalanda was like getting to Paradise. Later, the Brahmins did set up a few monastic orders of their own- but none got to live large in the manner of monastic Buddhism or pederastic Catholicism.

Since Brahmans were reproducing in a Malthusian manner- pushed by demographic pressure into new territory and attaching themselves in sycophantic fashion to every new center of power or profit or devotional piety- they prevailed thanks to their adaptability, cowardliness- which is why martial castes married off their sisters to young Brahmans whom they wouldn't be obliged to perhaps slay in a duel- and the usefulness of Paninian Sanskrit as a synthetic language in which anyone, anywhere, could gain extraordinary proficiency simply through a little intellectual labor. This is also the reason why the industrious pedants of Germany turned into Indologists on an industrial scale. But German Indology depended on livelihoods in Universities- after a brief period when Hanover supplied the East India Company with officials- though, it must be said, it showed a stupid but relentless drive to find other markets and thus sustain itself. But, it wasn't doing this by having babies in a landscape of Malthusian involution. Thus it will always have a tropism towards Buddhism which reproduces itself without the messy business of having babies but only because it holds life to be a dreary business- a point of view which being German would in any case incline stupid people to adopt as their default position.

The reason I am commenting on Bronkhorst's book is because it gives a pedantic type of alibi to the cretins who claim that Brahmins created and propagated the Caste system. This chimes with the absurd notion that 'Epistemic systems' create injustice as opposed to the notion that robbing people so as to get rich creates injustice. Plenty of worthless 'epistemic systems' come crawling out of the woodwork to lick the arse of ill gotten gains. It does not greatly matter which prevails or why or when it fails.

Consider the following-

Brahmanism now presents itself as initially belonging to a geographically limited area, originally centred in the middle and western parts of northern India. It was in this region that Brahmanism continued the culture of a largely hereditary class of priests,
the Brahmins, who derived their livelihood and special position in society from their close association with local rulers.

This could be said of the 'Received Pronunciation' and vocabulary of a particular language- e.g.

Chancery English now presents itself as initially belonging to a geographically limited area, originally centred in the South East of England. It was in this region that lawyers and merchant adventurers continued the culture of a largely hereditary class of scriveners and reeves who derived their livelihood and special position in society from their close association with local notables.

But Brahmanism is not a prestigious form of a language. Its sacred texts probably had a wide geographical currency because the patrons were pastoralists whose practice of transhumance involved regular journeys across vast distances.  It is probable that local agriculturists or merchants entrusted one or two of their sons to these pastoralists who supplied them not just with plentiful milk but useful instruction in martial arts as well as in the prestigious form of a language which was both commercially useful as well as sacerdotal. This meant these sons could rise to be local notables- useful as witnesses for contracts or marriage alliances. Some became bards. Others assumed priestly functions. But unlike Chancery, or, later on, 'R.P' English, there was no connection to 'ethnic capitalism'. The thing was always a 'commons'. There was no chrematistic or economic synoecism involved. No doubt, some Brahmins might genuinely be 'blue  bloods'- but being as poor as shit, this scarcely matters. Others who aren't as poor as shit are unlikely to be 'blue bloods' but may want to pretend that they would genuinely prefer to be as poor as shit and only keep stuffing money into their pockets because of ...urm... some double Dutch which this Prof. might kindly supply. But he won't coz he aint German and actually spent some time studying Sanskrit in India back when it wasn't taught by Politically Correct cretins.

Still, the following is silly-

This changed with the drastic political changes that took place in the northern parts of South Asia, perhaps beginning with Alexander’s invasion, culminating in the unification of much of the subcontinent under the Mauryas,and ending with a number of catastrophic invasions after the empire’s collapse. Alexander came from a different cultural world altogether, and tolerated Brahmins only to the extent that they did not stand in his way; where they did, they were slaughtered without mercy.

Alexander wasn't in India long. He massacred a whole bunch of Greeks in Afghanistan because their ancestors had sided with the Persians. The guy had serious anger management issues.

Alexander's India had been under the Achamenids. Its 'Brahmins' would have been lower than the Zoroastrian Mobeds. The Greeks ensured that the Indians would develop along separate lines to their Iranian cousins. Both countries had a priesthood of what may have been a common origin. But the Indian Brahmins never achieved the same sort of power. But neither did the Indian Mullah compared to his Persian counterpart. Pakistan is more like India than it is like Iran. This was scarcely inevitable. The different fates of the Indian priestly classes and those of Iran account for subsequent differences in trajectory.

I may mention that it is widely believed that the Zoroastrian clerisy prevented the productive classes from gaining literacy to shore up their own power. Nothing similar could be said of India where Brahmins, when not themselves illiterate, instructed the other castes or themselves received such instruction.

Why does Bronkhorst emphasize Alexander while neglecting the Achaemenids? I suppose it is because he thinks of the 'pure' Brahmins as being fanatical Zoroastrian priests who, however, have suffered a racial taint and thus turned gentle and philosophical. But, why not look at the Greeks as being unlike the Persians for the same reason the Indians were unlike the Persians? The learned class wasn't fanatical. It did not try to prevent the lower orders from advancing in learning. Kings might become Emperors, but they were not 'Universal Saviors'. They are depicted 'warts and all'.

The Greeks seemed to have liked 'Gymnosophists'- naked ascetics- but Brahmans aren't naked and can't be readily distinguished from harmless non-combatants. They'd have looked pretty much like any other rustic type of priest who presides over simple rituals. This is why 'political change' doesn't affect Brahmanism much but can be catastrophic for 'shraman', i.e. monastic, sects.

The Mauryas had their base in Magadha (part of ‘Greater Magadha’ and therefore home to a non-Brahmanical culture) and had no particular interest in Brahmins and their sacrificial tradition either.

Nobody had any particular interest in 'sacrificial traditions'. Priestcraft is a service industry. Hereditary priestcraft is like any other hereditary occupation. If you get something better paid or more prestigious you do that.  There may be some 'Trade Union' type sentiment against this. But that's why geographical mobility exists. Still, when it comes to marriage partners, your family may turn to those who remain in the traditional occupation. This is an example of a 'regret-minimizing strategy'. The need for 'Hannan Consistency' is one reason 'representative agent' theories are shite. Sticking with them leads to paranoid ideation. Of course, to some extent, saying crazy shit may be part of your job.
If you are a priest, you do have to pretend there is some unique soteriological power possessed only by your Scripture. Similarly, a lawyer may gas on about the unique wonders of the stupid legal system he serves. A poorly paid Grammar teacher may similarly praise the glories of the dialect he teaches.

But this has nothing to do with history- which is about Choice under conditions of scarcity- and thus revolves around competitive strategy. Now, sure, if 'representative agent' theory weren't shite then you could anthropomorphize fancy shmancy Religions. But Brahmanism isn't fancy shmancy. It is a service industry survival strategy- that too of a subsistence type-  for poor people in a poor land. No doubt, there were exceptions to this rule but those exceptions would drop Brahmanism in a heartbeat to get richer.

The invaders that preceded and followed their rule were even less interested (at least initially).

Nobody is interested in following rules unless they solve a coordination problem such that a much superior correlated equilibrium has Schelling focal signals. Invaders, being more ignorant than average, tend to be more conservative in this respect. They look for what they think is the last stable configuration before the one represented by the guys whose heads they have cut off.

As a result, Brahmanism as an institution was under threat; it either had to face disappearance, or reinvent itself.

No. Priests carried on in the villages. Competition between priests led to innovations such that costly rituals found a frugal but more spiritual expression. The borders between bardic, priestly, and productive classes remained porous such that a 'regret minimizing' paideia conducive to geographical and social mobility found an increasingly canonical expression. Ultimately, it was Agronomic considerations, because the area was primarily agricultural, which drove the waxing or waning of 'sprachbunds' as well as the rise and fall of both Empires and Zomias.

It did the latter. Brahmanism underwent a transformation which enabled it to survive and ultimately flourish in changed circumstances. Brahmanism—here defined as the culture carried by and embodied in the Brahmins, a group of people who emphasize the purity of their descent from both father’s and mother’s side—descended from a priestly religion with heavy emphasis on elaborate sacrifices.

The trouble here is that anybody at all could become a Brahmin. If he was good at his job, people would say- 'of course, his father's people were originally priests though they later took to such and such trade because of the great drought or the great flood or whatever. Moms didn't matter unless their people were rich or important. But they too could be shown to have originally been Brahmin. Indeed, since we are all descended from Self-born Manu, we are all descended from Brahmin Mums and Dads, coz Manu was his own Mum & Dad and boy was he Brahmin! '

The Brahmanism that in due time succeeded in spreading all over the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, and which we will occasionally call the ‘new Brahmanism’, was primarily (though not exclusively) a socio-political ideology.

When this Professor was young, it may have made sense to speak of 'socio-political ideology'. But it doesn't any more. Beating people costs money. Either the beating occurs or else Ideology batters out your brains merely metaphorically and thus in vain.

Religion is a service industry- just like the worthless type of pedagogy this guy has wasted his life on. Only demand and supply matter. In a poor country over a very long period of time, both are elastic. By contrast, nobody will pay tuppence for 'ideology'. Plenty of lunatics may want to supply it but their issues with incontinence, stabbing people, and screaming hysterically, may militate against professional success.

The central thesis to be presented in this book is that Brahmanism, as it was re-created (between Alexander and the Guptas) was not a haphazard collection of isolated features, but rather responded to a homogeneous vision of the world.

This is a silly thesis. Everybody who is not a lunatic has a 'homogeneous vision of the world'. That's why they don't chop off their own arm and stick it up their butt even though all Ideology, sub specie aeternitatis, counsels no other course.

In this vision, naturally, Brahmins play a central role.

Brahmins play a central role in their vision of the world- which involves them trading ritual services for some nice food to eat. Initially this was big haunches of meat and lots of wine. Later, it was meager lacto-vegetarian fare. But this meant more and more people could afford a Brahmin priest who would provide other useful services- e.g. maintaining genealogical records and arranging marriages.

This is true to the extent that rather than describing Brahmanism as a vision of the world in which Brahmins play a central role, one should perhaps describe it as a vision of Brahmins that has consequences for the world.

This is a meaningless distinction. Any occupational group will have its own lore. Knowledge of that lore solves a signalling problem. But, the economic role of the Brahmin was obvious for all to see. The Ruler does the coercion. The priest doesn't. Rulers may or may not have an 'Ideology' but such a thing can certainly be imputed to them. Priests are more likely to have an explicit 'Soteriology'.  But it is ontologically dysphoric.

As a matter of fact, much if not most of Brahmanical literature from this period is directed at Brahmins and deals with exclusively Brahmanical concerns.

Literature, more particularly of a technical or vocational type, is always directed at the class that produces and consumes that literature.

It appears, indeed, that Brahmins of that time made major efforts to create a separate identity for themselves, an identity they could maintain in circumstances where they could not count on a tradition of respect.

No. The class was large enough to support hereditary specialists and reputed savants. However, this literature would have collapsed if there was no market for the services this caste provided. No market means no respect. It is not the case that the Brahmins could support themselves on some mountain top or in a forest biding their time till it was safe for them to return. Both Brahman and Shraman lineages have stories about why and when they migrated from a particular place. This could be because of the sacking of a City but more usually the story is about a prolonged drought or else an invitation from a wealthy King. This does not mean Royal support did not make a difference. But Brahmanism was founded in the villages and ebbed and flowed from there. If you consider a pure 'Christaller Plane' type Econ model for this type of Religion, it is obvious that there is going to be cyclical fluctuations in monetization and urbanization. There may also be crowding out effects in the 'Knowledge Economy' such that a particular type of sacerdotal literature has its own cyclicity. What there can't be is a sudden fall in 'respect' which would mean no food for Brahmins and then a sudden restoration of respect for non-existent Brahmins who had already starved to death.

In the course of time Brahmins regained the respect they assumed was rightfully theirs, but now in a much larger geographical area than ever before.

How did this happen? Obviously, the Shraman Sects lost popular support because they were too elitist. This meant Brahmins who would have become Shraman Monks found other ways to get ahead.

With it, Brahmanical ideas about society at large gained in importance. These ideas about society can be looked upon as natural extensions of the ideas Brahmins had developed about themselves: Brahmanical standards of purity became applicable in society at large;

The evidence goes the other way. First there is a pathogen avoidance theory. Then it gets fossilised in a particular Ritualism. But more isolated populations would have more stringent pathogen avoidance. Pastoralists, in particular, would be a threat. Thus the direction of causality is from indigenous populations to pastoralists. In places with cold winters, pathogen avoidance is less extreme. Still, Buddhism does seem to have spread untouchability to Japan, perhaps even Korea. But that has nothing to do with Brahminism.

Brahmanical ritual practices came to accompany the lives of many non-Brahmins; Brahmanical ideas of the Brahmins’ position in society were extended so as to provide a template for society at large; Brahmanical claims to royal protection turned into manuals of statecraft; etc.

A Nation's priestcraft affects everybody by Tardean mimetics. It may be that 'Kohain' ritual practices affected all Jews. But nothing of the sort has been proved. As far as we know, Brahmins are more similar to orthodox non Brahmins in their region of origin rather than to each other and because this was always the case they initially tended to view each other with dark suspicion. Brahminical literature, like Kshatriya or Vaishya literature, was at least partly intended to break down such barriers.

In studying the spread of Brahmanism into the regions of South and Southeast Asia, one wishes to know how and why Brahmanical ideas about non-Brahmins found acceptance.

This is silly. Some people specialise in being priests. They may also have some other skills. But they are all part of the same team. The priest-guys put on a religious ceremony. The jocks put on a wrestling match or martial arts exhibition. But it is the delicious food prepared by the cooks that everybody turns up for. Then the bards start reciting their compositions and everybody falls asleep. 

The claim here made is that one is unlikely to find an answer to this question without linking it to the more fundamental question of what Brahmins thought about themselves.

The claim here is that one is unlikely to find an answer to the question of how come cooks came to be considered good at cooking without linking it to the more fundamental question of what cooks thought about themselves. 

As stated earlier, Brahmanical ideas about society are derived from Brahmanical ideas about Brahmins.

So X's ideas are derived from X's ideas about X. How fucking stupid are Dutch Indologists? 

Rulers and others who accepted Brahmanism, accepted first of all Brahmins as Brahmins, i.e. essentially the way they thought about themselves.

No. Brahmins were accepted the way cooks were accepted- if you liked their cooking. After the repast, one or two people might give ear to the cook's theory about cooking and how his great grand-father once made such a tasty bacon sarnie that Escoffier himself fainted from joy.

A group may think very highly of themselves. They may continually tell each other they are the cat's whiskers and have super-magic powers. But they still won't prevail. By contrast, a hereditary occupational caste can spread far and wide- e.g. the Dom/Romanis in Europe. They may not be respected. They may be persecuted. But this is a demographic matter. Fertility determines the outcome.

I can understand why stupid people from a boring part of the world may want to believe that guys with super-powers exist in the Andes or the Himalayas or the depths of the Sahara. But, the thing is puerile.

The way Brahmins thought about themselves cannot be reduced to mere publicity in view of impressing outsiders. Much of the Brahmanical literature that is primarily or exclusively directed at fellow-Brahmins is of a technicality and sophistication that an outsider would neither be able to, nor bother, to understand. And yet, much of this technical literature was part of the Brahmanical self-image, composed to support Brahmanical claims of superiority, but addressed to no audience apart from other Brahmins.

But, different theological schools were competing with each other as well as with Shraman sects. There was a demand for higher Credentials in abstruse shite and the Market supplied it quite cheaply. 

Brahmanism, then, should be thought of as a homogeneous vision of Brahmins and their position in the world, and primarily the result of the self-centered preoccupation of Brahmins during a difficult period in which their traditional position in the world was under threat.

Competition was internal. The fact is a Brahmin who becomes a Buddhist or Jain is still a Brahmin. He will perform rituals to Hindu gods and take on other lower level instructional duties. This was also true of other hereditary castes attached to temples or places of worship- e.g. the person who provides and removes flowers, the barber who provides tonsures etc, etc.

This self-centered preoccupation became the basis of features that in due time transformed an important part of the world. But those successful features cannot be understood without an understanding of the self-centered preoccupation from which they arose. This means that Brahmanism has to be looked upon as a whole that cannot be grasped by cherrypicking and excluding aspects of our choosing.

Sadly, though Brahmins have been seeing Brahmanism as a whole for thousands of years, stupid European professors simply don't have the basic mental competence to do any such thing. Bronkhorst's book is worthless.