The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.s6.1

c12.s6.1

It was, however, exactly this cyclical exchange of qualities that was intentionally broken up by the ritual reformers. King and brahmin were definitely separated and made into two mutually exclusive categories. But this meant that the king's access to esoteric knowledge and the authority based on it was irrevocably cut off. Ultimate authority was not the exclusive domain of the brahmin, who held the monopoly of the Veda. The king—like any mortal—can force his way to the new transcendence by renouncing the world, like the first three kings in Bhīṣma's account of the origin of kingship; but in that case, there is no longer a way back to a triumphant return, for he has then irrevocably given up status and realm. The king, therefore, desparately needs the brahmin to sanction his power by linking it to the brahmin's authority. The greater the king's power, the more he needs the brahmin. This, then, is the classical Indian formulation of the problem of authority.