The term "absolute monarch" gets thrown around a bit, almost never by anyone who understands it. In 1856 Henry Beveridge wrote on the (extinct) Hindoo monarchy before colonization. It was "absolute" in theory, but in practice, far more democratic than most 21st c. corporations. 
No matter how powerful this deity in human shape is, he must not for a second believe that he was born for himself. Henry Beveridge continues on Hindoo feeling for justice and punishment.
The King would govern, but only in accordance with a royal council, themselves a group of learned men, born to their position, near the end of their lives.
Of special interest to me is how the King's residence and seat of his power was selected and constructed. Note the special care taken that is should be almost cut off from the world, deliberately made inaccessible and remote, the exact opposite of modern Presidents and PMs.
The daily routine of the King was as circumscribed as that of a hermit of monk, obfuscation of government having been made a virtue, again, the complete opposite of any Occidental idea of ruling and power (at least that is what we are told...).
Finally (for now), Beveridge quotes Sir Thomas Munro (1761-1827), who in a scathing remark dismisses all of colonialism, progress by means of politics, and globalization of Western ideology. It reminds me of Bacons famous maxim: "One law for the ox and the lion is tyranny."
All of the book is fascinating, and even if a bit too detailed for modern readers, should even a tiny fraction of his near perfect command of the English language rub of on his readers, it shall have been a worthwhile read. (Henry Beveridge, 1837-1929)
