The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.s2.7

c14.s2.7

The king's connective sacrality is incompatible with the brahmin's separative authority. For the king and the brahmin to meet each other, it would be necessary that the brahmin, instead of stepping down from his ultramundane stand, steps up to a level from which he can enter the king's world of pervasive conflict without being affected by it. That is, the brahmin must be absolutely disinterested. This is indeed the image of the ideal brahmin. But it is hard to see how such a paradoxical stance could be realized and maintained in actual practice. It would, in fact, require a similarly detached king, who would rise above the restrictive bonds of personal relationships. This quality is recommended by the *Arthaśāstra* where it stresses the need for "victory over the senses" (*indriyajaya*)—a victory won, not by means of magic, but through science and discipline (*vidyā*, *vinaya*).⁴⁷ Kauṭilya's ideal is a rationalistic, impersonal, and detached kingship. But kingship based on the renunciatory virtue of indriyajaya would not need the brahmin's authority anymore. Although Kauṭilya reiterates the time-honored idea of the kṣatra fostered by the brahman,⁴⁸ he does not seem to have much use for the brahmin and his authority. For him the purohita is a learned magician, averting calamities and bringing about happy turns of events, but he is not a bearer of authority. More serious, however, is the fact that the king, by virtue of his renunciatory stance, would cut himself off from his field of activity in the middle of personal relationships and conflicting interests. It is significant that the discussion of the king's lofty detachment is concluded by stating the king's dependence on his associates (*sahāya*). "One wheel alone does not turn."⁴⁹ Here we are back again where we started. Both the power and authority of the king remain entangled in the web of relationships with his associates, the cosharers in the realm.