The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.5

c14.5

The king-brahmin formula takes care of power and authority, distinguished from each other “in an absolute fashion.” However, it is exactly with this absolute distinction that the problem lies. The formula leaves the middle terms, the mediating function of the priesthood, vacant. Understandably Dumont, following time-honored practice, views the brahmin as a priest and uses the two words interchangeably. But, as we saw, it is logically inconsistent for the brahmin to be both preeminent and a priest. As a priest in the service of king and community, he would derive his position from them and so jeopardize his claim to represent ultramundane authority. Indeed, the texts are perfectly clear on the point that he should not be a priest and especially not the king's priest.² Yet it is equally obvious that power and authority should complement each other and that king and brahmin therefore must cooperate.