The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s9.35

c19.s9.35

59. See, e.g., B. Stein, "Integration of the Agrarian System of South India," in *Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History*, ed. R. E. Frykenberg (Madison, 1969), 175–216, which clearly bears out the importance of the opposition.
60. *Mbh* 3. 314.
61. See N. Falk, "Wilderness and Kingship in Ancient South Asia," *History of Religions* 13 (1973): 1–15, which deals mostly with Buddhist materials. We may also think of the wilderness as the "conquest of kings" (*TB* 1. 7. 3. 8: *rājñām áraṇyam abhíjitam*), which can help us understand why one should ask the king for a place of sacrifice although it is situated outside the grāma, in the wilds (cf. W. Caland and V. Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma* [Paris, 1906], 6). The soma plant, which in the context of the ritual is referred to as "the king," very clearly belongs to the jungle.
62. *Grāme dīkṣate, araṇye yajate* (quoted by Caland and Henry, ibid., 26). The texts give detailed instructions for the march toward the place of sacrifice.
63. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, 71, 95, 116.
64. Ibid., 147. I have suggested that the unction in the rājasūya originally took place while the king was seated on the throne. Such unctions on the throne do indeed occur in similar rituals, but in the rājasūya, as the texts describe it, unction and enthronization are separated by a significant intervening rite. I shall try to show that this is not accidental.
65. For instance, Rau, *Staat und Gesellschraft*, 89f.
66. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, chap. 16.
67. Ibid., 91, 98, 226. Originally the ritual will have been a public, cyclically repeated regeneration festival. In the textual form we know, however, the public is excluded, sacrifice having become a purely private affair. Against this background, we can understand why, as already noted, the king *qua talis* has no place in the ritual except as a sacrificer like any other. In this way, we may also understand why the rājasūya, or even the single abhiṣeka, is not considered by the majority of commentators on *Manu* 7.2 to be the decisive royal "sacrament" (cf. note 24 above). In fact, though there are many rites that might be used (generically known as *Sava*), there is none that is specifically prescribed for the purpose.
68. *Manu* 11. 11–15.
69. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, 191.
70. *TB* 1. 8. 4. In fact, there may even be two cycles: one formed by unction, saṃsṛps, and daśapeya, the other, greater one by unction-daśapeya (these two being formally connected by the use of the same lot of soma stalks acquired at the outset of the unction festival), prayujāṃ havīṃṣi, and the haircutting solemnity.
71. *ĀpŚS* 22. 28. 2–10.
72. *BaudhŚS* 11. 7; 74. 10, 75. 8; 11. 12; 81. 2.
73. *ĀpŚS* 18. 4. 12–6. 6.
74. *ĀpŚS* 18. 7. 17.
75. *ŚB* 5. 2. 1. 19.
76. *Vaikhānasa Srautasūtra* 17. 18; 248. 2: *kṣatravṛttiṃ nivartayet*.
77. *Lāṭyāyana Srautasūtra* 18. 7. 10; 18. 12. 1.
78. *Vādhūlasūtra*, in W. Caland, *Acta Orientalia* 4 (1926): 168f.
79. Ibid., 169.
80. *AB* 8. 10–11.
81. *AB* 8. 21.
82. See Caland and Henry, *L'Agniṣṭoma*, 19.
83. *TS* 6. 1. 4. 1; *MS* 3. 6. 8: 70. 16; *KS* 23. 4: 79. 11.
84. For the scepter, see Benveniste, *Vocabulaire*, 2: 29–32. In this way, we can perhaps also understand the carrying of the daṇḍa at the division of the inheritance, because division of inheritance implies departure and settling elsewhere (*Kauśikasūtra* 23. 9–11).