[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985) › c14.7 # The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.7 The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.7 - **Language:** English ### [c14.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c14.7) The ambiguity of the king-brahmin relationship is expressed in the words of the \*Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka-Upaniṣad\* 1. 4. 11, where the kṣatra is said to have emanated from the brahman as the latter's foremost form: “Therefore nothing transcends the kṣatra; therefore the brahmin sits below the kṣatriya at the royal consecration (\*rājasūya\*); he bestows this honor only on the kṣatra. But the brahman is the womb of the kṣatra; therefore, though he attains the highest status, he finally rests on the brahman, his own womb; if he (the kṣatriya) hurts him (the brahmin), he hurts his origin; in the same way as when attacking a superior, he is worsted.” I think this contradictory statement, which alternately makes the king or the brahmin supreme only to deprive each again of his supremacy, sums up the problem of the dual dominium. - [Previous: c14.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c14.6) - [Next: c14.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c14.s1.1) - [Up: c14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c14) ## Linked texts (1) - [Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.brhadaranyaka.1.4.11) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c14.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c14.7) · Pramāṇa