The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c13.s1.8

c13.s1.8

Now, as Gonda puts it, "In India the divinity of kings, however small their domain, has always been accepted by the masses,"¹¹ and Kauṭilya recognizes this. But we should be clear as to what sacral kingship means in the Indian context. The sacral or divine king does not derive his authority from a transcendent principle, but from the community itself. As the chief organizer and celebrant of communal festivals, he symbolizes its essential unity. He is, as it were, the nodal point where the relationships of cooperation and rivalry that make up the community and that are ritually expressed in communal festivals come together. But by the same token, he remains enclosed in the web of personal relationships that constitute the community. This position is felicitously expressed in a brāhmaṇa text when it calls the king the "embryo" (*garbha*) of the *viś*, the common people.¹² In all his activities, he remains dependent on the community. He does not transcend it.¹³