The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c22.44

v1.c22.44

The most striking difference between the knights of the epic and the priestly power, which in the end controlled them, is that the warrior-caste was the royal caste and hence represented state-power, a political body, whereas the priests were never more than a caste of individuals. They represented no church-power. There is thus a fundamental lack of priestly organisation; there is nothing parallel to the Church of Rome in its contests with European state-power. Individual priests, without financial resources but dependent on the local rāja for support, could do nothing save persuade the rāja. But superstition aided them; and persuasion aided by superstition became a compelling power, which, however, was exerted only for two objects, the exaltation of the individual priest or of the priestly caste and the inculcation of religious and moral precepts, never for the formation of a worldly power within, but independent of, the State. There was no caste-head. When strife arose between priests, as it constantly arose apropos of a fat office to be enjoyed (the epic furnishes examples), each individual priest fought for his own hand; he had no bishop over him; and there was no pope to oppose a king. Thus, while the priestly law-book says that 'the priest is the norm of the world,' the epic says 'the king is the norm.' The law says that a priest has the right of way even over a king; the epic narrates that a king meets a priest and calls out to him 'get out of my way,' and despite the law, as cited, smites the priest with his royal whip. Such scenes show that the king is not yet the creature of the priest, but that the epic unconsciously reflects a freer life than that depicted as ideal by the later priests, who teach that the king is a steward divinely appointed to provide for them.