it was extinguished. One then set out from home to relight it elsewhere with a
fire drill after a lapse of time, say a year. More altars (two or four) were set up
subsequently. The process completed, the s ́a ̄lı ̄nabecame the a ̄hita ̄gni, that is, one
who has made the transition from the world in which he was born to one that
is transcendent. Two options were apparently available.
The householder could choose to settle down in the second abode, after
leaving the first, and establish the sacrificial fires there, and acquire the various
accoutrements of a householder, namely a fixed residence, grain, cattle, and
other kinds of wealth including servants. Alternatively, the householder could
opt for the life of a wanderer (ya ̄ya ̄vara). Although he might not have settled
down long anywhere, his wandering had a clear purpose, namely the perfor-
mance of the very same s ́rautasacrifices to which the householder devoted
himself. Indeed, the wanderer traveled to acquire the means, by force if neces-
sary, to do so. Those from whom he took included the settled householders,
whose antagonist he would have seemed to be. But his ultimate aim, after the
years of wandering and violence, apparently was to settle down to the life of a
peaceful householder. Although less glamorous it was regarded as a welcome
way of life.
In the event, the s ́a ̄lı ̄naand the ya ̄ya ̄varawere really not opposed to each other
in their aims but only in their methods. The householder does leave home once
to become the a ̄hita ̄gnihouseholder, and the wanderer eventually settles down
to domesticity. Both are united in the role of the s ́rautasacrificer, who is a house-
holder although, paradoxically, he also performs rituals that are extrasocial.
Making their appearance in the vedic texts, the householder and the wanderer
are present in the Dharma literature also as two types of householders.
Jan Heesterman, on whose discussion of the original Sanskrit sources the
foregoing account is based (see Heesterman 1982 and 1985), points out that
while all Dharma texts prescribe the departure of the s ́a ̄lı ̄nafrom home before
he may establish the sacrificial fires, the ya ̄ya ̄varaemerges as the renouncer
(sam.nya ̄sa) in some of them. Like the s ́rautasacrifice, renunciation is an act that
transcends society. But while the sacrificer periodically reverts to the life of the
householder (after each sacrificial performance), or even does so for good, the
renouncer turns his back on both the domestic and the sacrificial fires. Accord-
ing to Heesterman, the renouncer better fulfills “the inner logic” of the vedic tra-
dition, wherein the desire for breaking away from society is first articulated. The
wish for transcendence, however, never wholly repudiates the human world but
rather encompasses it. “The householder adds an extra-social dimension to his
quality by becoming a s ́rautasacrificer and finally withdraws from society into a
renunciatory mode of life. But even then he retains the quality ofgr.hasthaand
[of]a ̄hita ̄gmi”(Heesterman 1982: 268).
Patrick Olivelle, another authority on the subject, is even more emphatic in
presenting the early primacy of the householder’s way of life. He writes: “The
ideal and typical religious life within the vedic ideology is that of a married
householder. The normative character of that life is related to the two theologi-
cally central religious activities: offering sacrifices and procreating children”
the householder tradition in hindu society 291