Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c7.s5: (iv) The Mahābhiṣeka of Indra

Hindu Administrative Institutions c7.s5

Language
English

(iv) The Mahābhiṣeka of Indra

c7.s5.1

We have seen that the ordinary *abhiṣecanīya* consisted of two aspects—the one sprinkling of waters by the various estates of the state who were so many representatives of the people at large (*ratnins*), and the second the theological anointing by the *purohita*. But the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* describes a *mahābhiṣeka* which resembles in several details the *abhiṣecanīya* of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*. There, we are given, in the first place the *mahābhiṣeka* of Indra done by the gods with Prajāpati as he was the mightiest, the most powerful and strongest, the most real, the best of the accomplished among them. He then mounted the throne of *Ṛc*. . . . But for him to display his prowess, the gods said, he must be proclaimed. The proclamation was as follows:—

c7.s5.2

‘Do ye proclaim him, O Gods, as overlord and overlordship, as paramount ruler and father of paramount rulers, as self-ruler and self-rule, as sovereign and sovereignty, as king and father of kings, as supreme lord and supreme authority. The lordly power has been born, the Kṣatriya has been born, the suzerain of all creation hath been born, the eater of the folk hath been born, the breaker of citadels hath been born, the slayer of *asuras* hath been born, the guardian of the holy power hath been born, the guardian of the law hath been born.’

c7.s5.3

Prajāpati then anoints him with the verse:—

c7.s5.4

‘Varuṇa within the waters,
Hath set him down, preserving order.
For overlordship, for paramount rule, for self-rule, for sovereignty, for supreme authority, for kingship, for great kingship, for suzerainty, for supremacy, for pre-eminence, the wise one.’

c7.s5.5

Then the *vasus* of the east consecrated him for overlordship, the *rudras* of the south for paramount rule, the *ādityas* of the west for self-rule and all the gods of the north for sovereignty. The *sādyas* and the *āptyas* of the middle quarter for kingship, the *maruts* and *āngirasas* of the upward quarter for sovereignty and pre-eminence. Connected with Prajāpati he became supreme authority.¹

c7.s5.6

¹ viii. 12-14; Keith, *H. O. S.*, vol. xxv.

c7.s5.7

It requires no stretch of imagination then to infer that the *mahābhiṣeka* ceremony was intended only for a ruler who has attained pre-eminence by his world-conquest and who is emperor in the literal sense of the term. We use this phrase advisedly. Prof. Keith says:— ‘The political references do not hint at any great kingdoms but at a large number of petty princes who despite their titles and claims to sovereignty were doubtless rulers of limited portions of territory. The social conditions are in full accord with this view nor does it seem possible with Weber to see the conception of a real empire in the great consecration of Indra in the *Aitareya*.’² Now the *Aitareya* does not merely mention the theoretical system but refers to the names of several emperors who have had in the past such honour of this great consecration of Indra. To mention a few would not be out of place here.

c7.s5.8

² *H. O. S.*, vol. xxv, Introduction, p. 45.

c7.s5.9

Tura Kāvaṣeya anointed Janamejaya Pārikṣita; Cyavana Bhārgava anointed Ṣaryāta Mānava; Somaçuṣman Vājaratnāyana anointed Satānīka Sātrājita; Parvata and Nārada anointed Ambāṣṭhya; and Yudhāmçrauṣṭi, Augrasainya; Kaçyapa, Viśvakarman Bhauvana; Vasiṣṭha, Sudāsa Paijavana; Āṅgirasa, Marutta Avikṣita; Atreya, Aṅga; Dīrghatamas māmatya, Bharata Dauṣṣanti; Bṛhaduktha, Durmukha, the Pāñchāla; and Vasiṣṭha Sātyahavya, Atyarāti Jānantapi.

c7.s5.10

The latter played false with his *purohita* and was in consequence defeated and slain by another king Saibya. This idea of ‘playing false’ is contrary to all constitutional principles on which the coronation ceremony is based. For before he is actually consecrated with the great consecration of Indra the emperor is made to take an oath in public which ran as follows:—

c7.s5.11

‘From the night of my birth to that of my death, for the space between these two, my sacrifice and my gifts, my place, my good deeds, my life, and mine off-spring mayest thou take, if I play thee false.’¹

c7.s5.12

¹ *Ait. Br.*, viii. 15.

c7.s5.13

This is addressed to the *purohita* when the latter gives the warning in the same tone and language. The oath is different in different texts,² and suggests that this oath was not one peculiar to the *mahābhiṣeka* but applicable to the ordinary consecrations also. After all this is akin to the *sārvamedha* sacrifice of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*. He alone is entitled to this who has attained pre-eminence and suzerainty over the other rulers. The existence of an emperor does not necessarily mean the entire absence of other kings in smaller status and position. Thus in the *Aitareya* or for the matter of that in all the *Brāhmaṇas* we find mention of a number of kings ruling over different quarters. But everybody is not proclaimed as the emperor or suzerain. What we wish to establish is the fact that the various titles occurring in these texts bear their own significance; and to make any other assumption is to ignore a *de facto* tradition. The texts are clear with regard to the different titles. It is quite possible that side by side with an emperor there could be overlords and even kings as well in his empire who could have been subordinate to him. They might represent to an extent the great earldoms, created by Cnut, the best of Danish and English kings, over which he appointed great earls, himself being in charge of a separate earldom. On this account we cannot say that Cnut was only an overlord of Wessex and not a king of other earldoms like Northumbria, Mercia, and East Anglia. Probably there prevailed similar political conditions in India in the period of the *Brāhmaṇas*. There were dependent and independent rulers, and a great emperor would, by his mighty conquests, bring the independent kings to a stage of dependence. Such an all-powerful monarch alone seems to have been entitled to the *sārvamedha* and the *mahābhiṣeka*. Weighing then the names of many a monarch cited in the *Aitareya* in the impartial and unprejudiced balance of our minds, it is just possible to affirm that not only was there a conception of an empire but an actual empire in working. The *Aitareya* mentions the tribes of the Dakhan such as the Andhras which is a clear indication that the redactor of the text knew all India from the Himalayas to the very south. Again according to the Rāmāyaṇa, Rāma was the emperor of all India including Ceylon by his extensive conquests. Duryodhana and Yudhiṣṭhira were conversant with all India. Thus in the history of ancient India, now and then shoots forth an emperor to whom all the chieftains of small and big states acknowledge allegiance as their overlord.

c7.s5.14

² *Kau. Br.*, xvii. 4. 8; *Tait. Br.*, i. 7. 10.

Linked texts (5)