The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.11

c12.11

We know, of course, what the reason for this undecided state of affairs is, namely, that it is not the king but the brahmin who, according to the classical conception, holds the key to ultimate value and therefore to legitimacy and authority. The theory of sacrifice, as it was developed in the Vedic prose texts has no place for the king as such, let alone for a sacral, divine, or priestly one. He is at best a sacrificer (*yajamāna*) with the same status as any commoner sacrificer. Strictly speaking, he cannot even be that, for the brahmin should refrain from officiating for him.²³ It is significant that the Vedic *rājasūya*, though ostensibly meant for the royal investiture, is not by most dharma commentators understood to be the decisive sacrament (*saṃskāra*) that legitimates the king.²⁴