The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.8

c12.8

The apparent numinosity is further supported by the notion of the king’s divinity—a topic on which the texts are wont to expatiate. Thus the king is generally said to be made up of parts of different gods.¹⁶ Even an infant king is not to be disregarded, “for he is a great deity in human form”.¹⁷ And Bhīṣma, when asked by the puzzled Yudhiṣṭhira why it is that one man who is no different from other mortals in birth, death, and general appearance stands over all other men, answers straightforwardly that the only reason is the king’s divine quality.¹⁸ Since the gods were not only the recipients, but, according to an oft-quoted *Ṛgveda* verse, also the primordial celebrants of the sacrifice,¹⁹ it is not surprising that we find the king as the principal celebrant at the great festivals. His *dīkṣita*-like quality, which we already noted, fits perfectly in this pattern. In fact, the king’s activity is often equated with a life-long sacrifice, and the purāṇic royal rituals give a complete tableau of the king’s functions.²⁰ These rituals would leave the king no time for anything else, if indeed he would ever be able to finish all the ritual cycles and cycles within cycles.