[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Hindu Administrative Institutions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929) › c8.s2 # Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s2: Sec. ii. The Purohita Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s2 - **Language:** English ### Sec. ii. The Purohita ### [c8.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.1) Among the eighteen \*tīrthas\* or departments of the administrative machinery of the ancient Hindus, the institution of \*purohita\* or king’s advisor in matters religious and secular as well,⁵ was a prominent and influential one. That it was so even in very early times is sufficiently clear from the \*Saṃhitā\* and the \*Brāhmaṇa\* compositions. ### [c8.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.2) ⁵ \*Vedic Index\*, vol. i, p. 113; ii, p. 90. ### [c8.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.3) Just as the \*Rājasūya\* sacrifice was for the consecration of a Kṣatriya to the office of a king, so also was the \*Bṛhaspatisava\* for the consecration of the purohita to his office of \*Purohiti\*¹ or \*Purodha\*.² With all his political functions he had also religious duties to perform. He took part in the sacrifices (it must undoubtedly be sacrifices performed by the Kṣatriyas in as much as he is a political functionary of the state) and acted the \*Hotṛ\* and \*Brahman ṛtvik\*. In the \*Rājasūya\* of Yudhiṣṭhira Vyāsa officiated as \*Brahman\*, and Dhaumya as \*Hotṛ\*.³ Sukra officiated as \*Brahman\* in the \*Aśvamedha\* of Bali.⁴ Again he alone had the power to propitiate gods with offerings of various kinds for the general welfare of the king and kingdom against the natural and unforeseen calamities of the state. He was thus another guardian of the realm and it is but fitting that he is characterized as the \*rāṣṭragopa\*.⁵ ### [c8.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.4) ¹ \*Tait. Br.\*, ii. 7. 1, 2; \*R. V.\*, vii. 6. ### [c8.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.5) ² \*A.V.V.\*, 24. 1. ### [c8.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.6) ³ \*Mbh.\*, ii. 33. 32-5. ### [c8.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.7) ⁴ \*Bhāgavata Purāṇa\*, viii. 23. 14. ### [c8.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.8) ⁵ \*R. V.\*, vii. 18-13; \*A. V.\*, iii. 18; \*Ait. Br.\* viii. 24-25. ### [c8.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.9) There is evidence to indicate that the purohita not only followed his monarch to the theatre of war but also took part in the operations on the field. That is to say that if occasion so demanded of him he offered fight by joining the rank and file of the army. Professor Hopkins refers to this in his learned contribution to the \*Journal of American Oriental Society\*.⁶ Viśvāmitra was the purohita of king Sūdas of the \*Rig-Veda Saṃhitā\* and took part in the operations of war against him by the allied forces of ten tribes, well-known as the ‘Battle of the Ten Kings’. ### [c8.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.10) ⁶ vol. xv, pp. 260 ff. ### [c8.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.11) The origin of this institution is shrouded in entire mystery. Zimmer¹ inclines to the view that this office should have come into existence after the establishment of the caste system which is generally regarded as belonging to the last period of the composition of the \*Rig-Veda\* texts. Mr. Law seems to give countenance to this opinion. Quite an opposite view is taken by equally eminent scholars. There is however strong reason to believe that the institution existed as well established even in the early epoch of the \*Rig-Veda Samhita\* where we find innumerable references to it.² Fick traces the institution even to pre-Vedic times.³ ### [c8.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.12) ¹ \*Alindisches Leben\*, chap. vi, pp. 195 ff. ### [c8.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.13) ² iii. 33. 8 ; vii. 18. 83. ### [c8.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.14) ³ Trans. S. K. Maitra, p. 164. ### [c8.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.15) That this institution has not been sufficiently understood in its true spirit even by learned Sanskritists is clear. Julius Eggeling writes: ‘A complicated ceremonial requiring for its proper observance and consequent efficacy the ministrations of a highly trained priestly class has ever been one of the most effective means of promoting heirarchical aspirations. Even practical Rome did not entirely succeed in steering clear of the rock of priestly ascendancy attained by such like means.’⁴ Again ‘in urging the necessity of frequent and liberal offerings to the gods, and invoking worldly blessings on the offerer, the priestly bard may be detected often pleading his own cause along with that of his employer as Kaṇva does when he sings:’⁵ ‘Let him be rich, let him be foremost, the bard of the rich, of so illustrious a Maghavan as thou, O Lord of the Bay Steeds!’ He concludes from this that the sacerdotal office must have been a very lucrative one.⁶ ### [c8.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.16) ⁴ \*S. B. E.\*, vol. xii, Introduction, pp. 9 and 10. ### [c8.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.17) ⁵ \*R. V.\*, viii. 2. 13. ### [c8.s2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.18) ⁶ \*S. B. E.\*, vol. xii, Intro. p. 11 ### [c8.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.19) It is to be regretted that a distinguished Vedic scholar like Eggeling should have fallen into this error. There is no reason even to suppose that there were in ancient India a trained priestly class as such, or any priestly colleges like those of Rome or any like conception of heirarchy. Prof. Hopkins writes: ‘They did not live in monasteries like the Buddhists. They did not draw salaries like the Christians. All that they had to live on was what was given them. They were not permitted to earn a living by worldly means. No wonder they were always rather profuse in praising gifts.’ Evidence is equally wanting to prove that such sacerdotal offices were lucrative, or rather that the priests aimed at self-advancement at the expense of the sovereign or the ruling class. There was no priestly department in the state. To quote Prof. Hopkins again, ‘While the Brahmanas never organized into monastic bodies but dwelt apart each in his own home living on private emoluments and daily alms, the Buddhists built enormous establishments which being supported as they were built by state patronage as well as by private benefactions flooded the country with an idle army of begging friars and even from the beginning became a refuge for lazy incompetents, as later (outside of India) they became hot-beds of immorality and political intrigue.’¹ ### [c8.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.20) ¹ \*Ethics of India\*, pp. 148-49. See also \*J. A. O. S.\*, vol. xiii, p. 72. ### [c8.s2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.21) First of all the word ‘priest’ is a misnomer in ancient Indian historical literature. It conveys no meaning at all to the student of Indian Literature. The Brahmana community were never a class of priests as we understand to-day by this term. Every member of this community was accorded reverence and respect not because they were highly trained in sacrificial rites but for their deep and great learning of the whole sacred lore, and also for their शुचि (purity), शील (character) and आचार, which is putting into practice what they had learnt. According to Vasiṣṭha: ‘He alone is a Brahman who controls his mind, practises austerities, conquers the senses, is large-hearted, truthful, pure, versed in sacred lore, compassionate, is full of practical experience, intelligence and the quality of faith.’¹ ### [c8.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.22) ¹ vi. 23. ² \*Ibid.\*, vi. 26. ³ i. 200. ⁴ \*Mahābhārata\*, Udyoga Parvan, 45. 5 ; \*Śānti Parvan\*, 187. 18 : 276. 28. ⁵ \*Manu\*, iii. 150 ff. ### [c8.s2.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.23) Again the Brahmanas alone were qualified to receive gifts and that from kings only. But such gifts were awarded not because by accident they were born in the Brahmana community, but explicitly to some for their sacred learning and to others for practising austerities.² ### [c8.s2.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.24) To this sentiment may be added another dictum of Yājñavalkya. The latter says, ‘he is no Brahman worthy of respect if he is devoid of good character, though learned and austere.’³ The same idea is repeatedly insisted on in the pages of the \*Mahābhārata\*. A Brahman devoid of good conduct could not be termed a Brahman but a Brāhmaṇaka, a man of low caste. That is patent to demonstrate the social equality of all castes and communities. The idea underlying this fact is that it is character and conduct that made and unmade the castes.⁴ Any Brahman who fell short of the ideal of his \*svadharma\* was not respected but regarded as a degraded outcaste.⁵ ### [c8.s2.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.25) To determine the true position of the Brahmana community is to study the social and religious organizations of ancient India. We are not at present concerned with this knotty problem. Ours is the examination of the institution of the \*purohita\* (literally \*præpositus\*). We cannot positively assign a date to the origin of this all important institution. But one thing is obvious, namely, that no office of monarchy or chieftaincy existed even in very early times without this office of the \*purohita\*. Both appear to have been the twins of the same mother, the state. Every state had a chieftain or king and every chieftain or king had invariably a \*purohita\*. Sometimes there was only one \*purohita\* for more than two or three kings. Devabhāga Srautarṣi was the \*purohita\* of the kings of both the Srinjayas and the Kurus.¹ It seems to have been an hereditary office. In the Sūryavaṃsa the Ikṣvāku kings invariably speak of Vasiṣṭha as their \*purohita\*. Orthodox tradition has it that the same Vasiṣṭha lived for thousands of years on account of his great \*tapas\* while monarchs died and succeeded. Whatever may be the truth, one fact is prominent and that is that there must have been a number of hereditary \*purohitas\* each called after the far-famed ancestor Vasiṣṭha taking a legitimate pride in their birth in such a distinguished line. Even to-day it is a custom in India to adopt the surnames or hereditary titles of famous forefathers.² Again Eggeling speaks of the gradually increasing importance of the office of \*purohita\*. ‘From the comparatively modest position of a private chaplain who had to attend to the sacrificial obligations of his master he appears to have gradually raised himself to the dignity of so to say a minister of public worship and confidential adviser of the king.’³ So far we cannot trace any evolution in the increasing importance of the office. In support of this statement a text of the \*Rig Veda\*⁴ ascribed to Vāmadeva is quoted. But the passage in question does not warrant any modest position to the \*purohita\*. His extraordinary influence is greatly felt. He is all-powerful, perhaps more powerful than the king himself. It would be certainly instructive to quote the passage. ‘That king alone in front of whom the Brahman walks (पूर्व एति) lives well established in his house: for him there is ever abundance of food: before him the people bow of their own accord!’ Certainly this does not warrant any modest position to the purohita. But Eggeling takes shelter under the ill-supported argument that these verses are a later addition. Let alone this passage. There is another verse wherein the invocation addressed to Agni, the latter is characterized as the purohita, the divine ministrant of the sacrifice. The text runs as follows: ‘I magnify Agni the purohita, the divine ministrant of the sacrifice, the Hotṛ priest, the greatest bestower of treasures.’¹ From this it is obvious that Agni does not hold the position of a private chaplain in the kingdom of gods but he is the ‘divine ministrant’ and ‘the king of all worship’. ² ### [c8.s2.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.26) ¹ \*Sat. Br.\*, ii. 4. 4. 5. ### [c8.s2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.27) ² \*Vide\* Oldenberg's \*Religion Das Veda\*, p. 375. ### [c8.s2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.28) ³ \*Ibid.\*, p. 12. ### [c8.s2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.29) ⁴ iv. 50. 8. ### [c8.s2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.30) ¹ R. V., i. 1. ### [c8.s2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.31) ² I, I, 8; S. B. E., vol. xlvi. ### [c8.s2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.32) It is a correct estimation of Prof. A. B. Keith who remarks: ‘The Vedic purohita was the forerunner of the Brahman statesmen who from time to time in India have shown conspicuous ability in the management of affairs and there is no reason to doubt that a Viśvāmitra or Vasiṣṭha was a more important element of Government of the early Vedic realm. It is clear too from the hymns which are attributed to the families of these sages that the purohita accompanied the king to battle and seconded his efforts for victory by his prayers and spells. In return for his faithful service the rewards of the purohita were doubtlessly large. The dāna-stutis of the Rig Veda tell of generous gifts of patrons to the poets and we may safely assume that the largest donations were those of kings to the \*purohita\*.¹ Our own view is that from the earliest known literature, the \*Rig Veda Samhita\*, down to the later treatises on the \*Arthaśāstra\*, the \*purohita\* maintained one and the same position in the state, at least in every Kṣatriya-ruled state. ### [c8.s2.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.33) ¹ C. H., I. i. pp. 95-96. ### [c8.s2.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.34) No scholar has bestowed so much thought and attention on this great institution as Julius Eggeling and hence we cannot refrain from quoting him once again. He continues: ‘The struggle for social ascendency between the priesthood and the ruling military class must in the nature of things have been of long duration. In the chief literary documents of this period which have come down to us, viz. the \*Yajur Veda\*, the \*Brāhmaṇas\* and the hymns of the \*Atharva Veda\*, some of which perhaps go back to the time of the later hymns of the \*Rik\*, we meet with numerous passages in which, the ambitious claims of the Brahmans are put forward with singular frankness. The powerful personal influence exercised by the \*purohita\* as has already been indicated seems to have largely contributed to the final success of the sacerdotal order.’ The so-called struggle between the two classes, the Brahmans and the Kṣatriyas, is more a product of the imagination than one of actual fact. In the whole mass of the Vedic and later Sanskrit literature we cannot trace a conflict between a king and his \*purohita\*. The king dared not disobey the \*purohita\* or the \*purohita\* overrule the monarch. The ambitious claims of the Brahmans are not peculiar to the \*Yajur Veda\* or the \*Atharva Veda\* alone. Did we not find the same in the \*Rig Veda Samhita\*? Prof. Keith distinguishes two classes of priests in this period, the king’s \*purohita\* and the sacrificial priest. Says he: ‘In both cases the priest was in the long run at the mercy of the political power of the king.'¹ The office of \*purohita\* is glorified everywhere such as the \*Arthaśāstra\* texts of Kauṭalya and Kāmandaka. There is no final success of one order over the other, because the very premises are doubtful. We have no definite passages in any of the texts portraying the different phases of the struggle for any sort of social ascendency. It is possible that references to occasional disputes between some \*purohita\* and his king² has been misconstrued for the struggle between the two orders of the community.³ ### [c8.s2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.35) ¹ \*C.H.\*, I, i. p. 128. ### [c8.s2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.36) ² \*Ait. Br.\*, vii. 27 : \*Pañch. Vims Br.\*, xiii. 12. 5 and xiv. 6. 8. ### [c8.s2.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.37) ³ Cf. Lassen, \*Indische Alterthumskunde\*, i, pp. 713 ff. ### [c8.s2.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.38) The social ascendency, if a real fact, is due to \*śrotriatvam\*, i.e., learning and force of character, and to nothing else. The learned scholar seems to think that he is not altogether correct in his own statements. For says he in another later paragraph ‘The question as to how Brahmans ultimately succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the ruling class receives but little light from the contemporaneous records. Later legendary accounts of sanguinary struggles between the two classes and the final overthrow and even annihilation of the Kṣatriyas can hardly deserve much credence. Perseverance and tenacity of purpose were probably the chief means by which the Brahmans gained their ends.’ He seems to be laying himself out for establishing an imaginary fact. If the Brahmans had been really avaricious or ambitious they could have easily aspired to the imperial and royal offices. If they had only wished they could have easily adorned the thrones of many a state. But instead they sought voluntarily hard and strenuous life of fasting and penance. ### [c8.s2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.39) Remark has already been made that the \*purohita\* continued to maintain his old position even in the epoch of the \*Dharma Śāstras\* and the \*Arthaśāstras\*. Dr. Goshal who has given some thought to the question advances the argument that the \*purohita\* of Kauṭalya’s \*Arthaśāstra\* has been ruled out from the list of proximate factors of Government.¹ Though this point has been given some consideration elsewhere² still it would not be out of place to recapitulate some of the statements. The commentator of the \*Kāmandaka nīti sāra\*, Śankarārya characterizes the \*purohita\* as a ‘विशेष अमात्य’ one of the more prominent ministers, and qualifies his statement to that effect.³ ### [c8.s2.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.40) ¹ \*Hindu Political Theories\*, pp. 88-89. ### [c8.s2.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.41) ² \*Is Arthaśāstra secular?\* by the author—\*Proceedings of the Third Oriental Conference\*, pp. 615-6, ### [c8.s2.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.42) ³ पुरोऽधोयते नियुज्यते दृष्टादृष्टेषु इति पुरोहितः । (\*Commentary on verses 30 and 31 of chapter iv of Kāmandaka.\* ### [c8.s2.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.43) How he is one among the king’s ministry is further testified by the commentator of the \*Śilappadhikāram\*, a classic of the period of the Tamil Śangam, who explains the ஐம்பெருங்குழு of the text, as minister, the \*purohita\*, the commander-in-chief, ambassador and Director of Public Information to use a modern term.⁴ This and similar references from the Tamil treatises can bear the weight of the inference that the office of the \*purohita\* was not alien even to Dravidian polity. These confirm our view that the \*purohita\* continued to maintain his true station among the state officials as in Vedic times. ### [c8.s2.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.44) ⁴ See \*Tamil Lexicon\*, vol. i, pt. iii, p. 579. ### [c8.s2.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.45) What is then his position in the \*Arthaśāstra\* and what are his functions and qualifications? Kauṭalya rules⁵ that he may be appointed or selected as the \*purohita\* who belongs to a distinguished and good family, highly learned, versed in all the sacred lore, as well as the science of astronomy, and the theory of polity, skilled in propitiating gods by the various rites prescribed in the \*Atharva Veda\*, to ward off calamities providential or otherwise occurring in the kingdom. Him the king should follow as a student his teacher, a son his father, and a servant his master. The same sentiments are given expression to in the verse of Yājñavalkya.¹ ### [c8.s2.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.46) ⁵ पुरोहितमुदितोदितकुलशीले, षडङ्गे वेदे दैवे निमित्ते दण्डनीत्यां चाभिविनोतम् आपदां देवमानुषाणामथर्वभिः उपायैश्च प्रतिकर्तारं कुर्वीत । ### [c8.s2.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.47) ¹ पुरोहितं च कुर्वीत दैवज्ञमुदितोदितम् । दण्डनीत्याश्च कुशलं अथर्व्याङ्गिरसे तथा ॥ (i. 313.) ### [c8.s2.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.48) That the \*purohita\* is one among the council of advisors to the king is also seen from the phrase of Kauṭalya.² Here too the text follows Yājñavalkya closely. It has been pointed out that the \*purohita\* of the \*Arthaśāstra\* in no way occupies a lower status than that of the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\* where he is represented as the providence guiding the destinies of the kingdom. ### [c8.s2.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.49) ² मन्त्रिपुरोहितसख : (Bk. i, Sec. 10.) ### [c8.s2.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.50) तं आचार्य शिष्यः पितरं पुत्रो भृत्यः स्वामिनमिव चानुवर्तेत । (Bk. i, Sec. 9.) ### [c8.s2.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.51) पुरोहितं च कुर्वीत दैवज्ञमुदितोदितम् । दण्डनीत्याश्च कुशलं अथर्व्याङ्गिरसे तथा ॥ (i. 313.) ### [c8.s2.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.52) Cf. \*Apastamba\*, ii. 5-10. \*Gautama\* xi. 12; \*Baudha\*, i. 10. 18 (7 and 8). This is only one of the few parallel passages some of which are referred to in the introduction to the first volume of \*Kauṭalya Arthaśāstra\* edited by Dr. Ganapati Sastri of Trivandrum (pp. 6-8). These parallels show unmistakably that one of them is indebted to the other. But who is the original author is the point at issue. It must be said to the credit of the great Mahāmahōpādhyaya that he has proved on substantial evidence that the \*Kauṭaliya\* is posterior to the \*Smṛti\* of Yājñavalkya and hence it is indebted to this iaw-book more than anything else. ### [c8.s2.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.53) Here is an internal textual evidence which bears out this fact more clearly than anything else.¹ ### [c8.s2.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.54) ¹ ब्राह्मणैधितं क्षत्रं मन्त्रमन्त्राभिमन्त्रितम् । जयत्यजितमत्यन्तं शास्त्रानुगतक्षत्रम् ॥ (\*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. i, Sec. 9.) ### [c8.s2.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.55) The energy of the Kṣatriya backed by that of the \*purohita\* and assisted by the deliberations of the ministers following the precedents laid down in the \*Śāstras\* leads to success without question.² Further the \*purohita\* of the \*Kauṭalīya\* occupies a unique rank among the highest paid state-officials, such as the minister, the commander-in-chief, or members of the royal household, the crown-prince, the king's mother, and the queen. Kauṭalya fixed the salary of the \*purohita\* as 48,000 \*paṇas\* per annum. The smaller officials under his department were each paid 1,000 \*paṇas\* yearly.³ ### [c8.s2.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.56) ² ब्राह्मण्यनुपमा दृष्टिः क्षात्रमप्रतिभं बलम् । तौ यदा चरतः सार्धं तदा लोकः प्रसीदति ॥ (\*Vana Parvan\*, xxvi. 16.) Cf. \*Mahābhārata\*, Ādi Parvan, cxlix, 39; Manu, ix. 323; Gautama, xi. ### [c8.s2.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.57) ³ Bk. v, chap. iii. ### [c8.s2.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.58) It may be argued that the high salary allowed by Kauṭalya to the \*purohita\* does not necessarily mean that the latter was one of the \*amātyas\*. For the Archbishop of Canterbury draws a princely salary but surely for that reason one cannot claim for him a place in the cabinet of ministers. It is wrong to judge ancient Indian facts by modern standards. There is no comparison between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the \*purohita\* of the ancient Indian state. That the latter was an influential factor of the Hindu cabinets no one can deny. To this extent Kauṭalya gives unmistakably a place to him. He was an important limb of the Government. ### [c8.s2.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.59) We saw in the \*Vedic\* texts that one of his functions was to follow the king to the theatre of war and encourage the warriors now and then to rise equal to the occasion. In the chapter on encampment on the eve of the war¹ four divisions of the camp are mentioned and in the first are the \*purohita\* and the Prime Minister. The \*purohita\* encourages the army by quoting \*Vedic\* authority as to the final goal of brave men in the field.² ‘Such of those places which the heaven-desiring Brahmans reach with their sacrificial utensils through several \*yajnas\* and penances, are attained immediately by the warriors who give up their lives heroically in battles for a good cause. That soldier who having eaten of the salt of his master would not fight is sure to go to hell and be deprived of the consecrated vessel of water covered over with \*darbha\*-grass.’ Here we are reminded of the poet-bards mentioned in the Tamil texts of the \*Śangam\* epoch. These were called \*pāṇar\*. Their duty was to sing the ### [c8.s2.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.60) ¹ \*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. x, Sec. i. ### [c8.s2.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.61) ² यान् यज्ञस्र्धैस्तपसाच विप्राः स्वर्गैषिणः पात्रचयश्च यान्ति । क्षणेन तानप्यतियन्ति शूराः प्राणान् सुयुद्धेषु परित्यजन्तः ॥ नवं शरावं सलिलस्यपूर्णं सुसंस्कृतं दर्भकृतोत्तरयम् । तत्तस्य माभून्नरकं च गच्छेद्यो भर्तृपिण्डस्य कृते न युध्येत् (Arthaśāstra, Bk. x, Sec. 3.) ### [c8.s2.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.62) The second verse नवं शरावं, etc., is found in the Fourth Act of Bhāsa’s \*Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa\* (edited and published by the late Gaṇapati Śāstri) addressed to soldiers to stimulate them to fight. Prof. S. Kuppuswami Śāstri on the authority of the \*Nayacandrika\* commentary on the \*Arthaśāstra\* seems to take the view that these verses ‘were taken from some \*Purāṇa\* in which they happened to be put into the mouth of Manu, \[Intro. \*Āścaryacūḍāmaṇi\* (Śrī Bālamanorama series, Madras), pp. 21-23.\] The commentator’s suggestion is only a conjecture which is not based on any authority. The late Pandit is therefore probably right that the \*Śloka\* in question is Bhāsa’s own quoted by Cāṇakya, the author of the \*Arthaśāstra\*. (\*Vide\* Intro. \*Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa\*, pp. 3-4.) ### [c8.s2.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.63) glories of heroes who had fallen heroically in the field and thus infuse fresh spirit into the minds of the soldiers during the encounter. That they often followed their respective kings to the field and even acted as intermediaries and arbitrators, and sometimes also succeeded in averting the conflagration of wars is on record.¹ One peculiarity was that owing to their great learning even the enemy king accorded them due respect, and never questioned their movements in their kingdoms. ### [c8.s2.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.64) ¹ See \*The Art of War in S. India\*, by the author in the '\*Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute\*', vol. vii, No. iv. ### [c8.s2.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.65) Even later works on polity like the \*Kāmandaki Śukranīti\*, \*Nitivākyamṛta\* continue the traditional ideas about this functionary. He is the directing force in the administration of Kāmandaka.² The qualifications of the \*purohita\* which are narrated in the \*Śukranītisāra\* well-nigh agree with what Kauṭalya has recommended.³ The \*Śukranīti\* adds that he is also the \*ācārya\* or preceptor. This office figures as the first and the highly paid one among the ten departments of Sukrāchārya.⁴ ### [c8.s2.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.66) ² Trivandrum edition, p. 56. ### [c8.s2.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.67) ³ Sukra, ii. 78-81. ### [c8.s2.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.68) ⁴ Sukra, ii. 70-72. Apparently by the time of the \*Śukranīti\*, whose date of composition is still a bone of contention among scholars, the eighteen departments of the state had reduced themselves to ten. Perhaps the complex nature of the organization of the administrative machinery warranted this change in the system of Government. ### [c8.s2.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.69) The \*Nitivākyamṛta\* contains a whole section on the functions and qualifications of this functionary. This is important because Somadevasūri is a faithful transmitter of ancient and especially Kauṭalīyan tradition. The commentator quotes on the first stanza of the section a verse from Sukra: ### [c8.s2.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.70) दिव्यान्तरिक्षभौमानां उत्पातानां प्रशान्तये । तथा सर्वापदां चैव कार्यो भूपैः पुरोहितः ॥ ### [c8.s2.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.71) The Chief Minister and the \*purohita\* are equal to mother and father as told by Bṛhaspati.¹ ### [c8.s2.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.72) ¹ समौ मातृपितृभ्यां राज्ञो मंत्रो पुरोहितौ । अतस्तौ वाञ्छितार्थेन कथंचिद्विस्तरेयत् ॥ ### [c8.s2.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.73) A categorical list of the calamities providential or otherwise which the \*purohita\* makes effort to avert is given. Fire, or thunder, rain or over-rains, epidemic, famine, pestilence to crops, relinquishment of men, prevalence of diseases, \*bhūta\*, \*piśācha\* and demons, fear of tiger, rats and snakes.² On this account Kālidāsa seems to have used the epithet \*kṛtyavit\* to the \*purohita\* Vasiṣṭha of King Daśaratha.³ In addition to these onerous functions, he was also according to the \*jātakas\* an administrator of justice⁴ and a guardian of king's treasures.⁵ ### [c8.s2.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.74) ² Cf. \*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. viii, Sec. iv. ### [c8.s2.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.75) ³ \*Raghuvamsa\*, xi. 58. ### [c8.s2.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.76) ⁴ The \*Dhammaddhaja Jātaka\*, i, vol. p. 220. ### [c8.s2.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.77) ⁵ The \*Banhana Mokka Jātaka\* vol. i, p. 120. ### [c8.s2.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.78) Before we examine the position assigned to the \*purohita\* in the \*Dharmaśāstra\* and epic literature we must complete the description of the status accorded to him in the \*Arthaśāstra\* itself. It has been demonstrated that he was the guiding force in the administration. By this it must not be concluded that he was above the law of the land. Like any other citizen he was punished whenever there was a departure from his \*svadharma\* or loyalty to the king. The punishment amounted to imprisonment or banishment.⁶ The \*Panchavimśa Brāhmaṇa\* goes further and rules that he might be even punished with death in cases of treason.⁷ What we wish to drive at is the fact that the \*purohita\* of the \*Kauṭalīya\* preserved the status he had in Vedic times. Dr. Winternitz takes a similar position with regard to the \*purohita\*,¹ and says that Kauṭalya accepts entirely the Brahmanical religion and view of life as the foundation of the state, and he has in view a state organization in which the Brahman plays a first role. ### [c8.s2.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.79) ⁶ \*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. ix, Sec. 3 ; cf. Manu, viii. 335. ### [c8.s2.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.80) ⁷ xiv. 6. 8. ### [c8.s2.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.81) ¹ Vide his \*Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur\*, vol. iii, pp. 523 ff. See also \*Sir Asutosh Memorial Volume\* (Patna), p. 34. ### [c8.s2.82](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.82) From the \*Dharmasūtras\* and the \*Dharmaśāstras\* we see that the same qualifications are mentioned and that it is insisted that the monarch must act according to the instructions of the \*purohita\*.² The epics and the \*Purāṇas\* also faithfully transmit the Vedic tradition but in this epoch it is obvious that his duties become more and more complex. Sometimes he had to attend to several functions at the same time. The \*Garuda Purāṇa\* says, ‘The high priest of the realm should be a man of vast erudition and perfect self-control—a hero in soul and virtue.’³ The same \*Purāṇa\* speaks of a royal priest as distinguished from the high priest and his qualifications are the following: ‘The royal priest should be a man who has studied the \*Vedas\* and the \*Vedāṅgas\* and constantly meditates upon the Divine self by celebrating \*homa\* ceremonies and pleasing the whole world in weal and woe.’⁴ ### [c8.s2.83](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.83) ² \> सर्वेषां तु विशिष्टेन ब्राह्मणेन विपश्चिता । ### [c8.s2.84](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.84) ³ M. N. Dutt Trans., chap. cxii; cf. Agni., cxxxix. 16-17. ### [c8.s2.85](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.85) ⁴ \*Ibid.\* ### [c8.s2.86](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.86) In the \*Mahābhārata\* which is a mine of useful information Gandharva speaks to Arjuna on the infinite ### [c8.s2.87](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.87) मन्त्रयेत्परमं मन्त्रं राजा षाड्गुण्यसंयुतम् ॥ नित्यं तस्मिन्समाश्वस्तः सर्वकार्याणि निःक्षिपेत् । तेन सार्धं विनिश्चित्य ततःकर्म समारभेत् ॥ ### [c8.s2.88](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.88) Manu, vii. 58 and 59; cf. Baudh. 1. 10. 18 (7 and 8); Yājñavalkya, i. 313-14. ### [c8.s2.89](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.89) importance of the \*purohita\* to the king. Though a \*karmavṛtta\*, a king will be able to conquer the Rākṣasas provided the \*purohita\* leads him in front. He is the source of the king's name and fame. To that king whose \*purohita\* is self-controlled, versed in \*Vedas\* and \*Vedāṅgas\*, pure, truthful, selfless and devoted to \*dharma\*, heaven is certain. To him even the unattainable fruits could be got, and those got would be easily and safely kept. That king who yearns after the welfare of all must be in the confidence of this official. It is wrong to assume that a Kṣatriya conquers the whole world by sheer prowess and mere family greatness. It is only a kingdom under the guiding hand of a Brahman that will last long.¹ That on him hangs the thread of the realm is again brought out in chapter (cxc) where it is said that the Ikṣvāku kings attained celebrity and greatness owing to Vasiṣṭha, their \*purohita\*.¹ The same Gandharva recommends Dhaumya, the younger brother of Ṛshi Devala as the \*purohita\* of the Pāṇḍavās. On request Dhaumya accepted the offer; and led by him the Pāṇḍavās reached Pañchala-deśa. Here is a case of departure from the hereditary system of appointment.² That he must be duly qualified and honoured by the king is further repeated by the sage Nārada.³ The same ideas are given to Yudhiṣṭhira by Ṛshi Vāka in the \*Vana Parvan\*. The sage quotes the classic example of the Asura king Bali whose success was due to the Brahmans only. A king without a \*purohita\* is like an elephant without the mahout. A king with the \*purohita\* is compared to the fire united with wind.⁴ These important comparisons have indeed a significance of their own. They signify the great and imperative value of this functionary. ### [c8.s2.90](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.90) ¹ यस्तु स्यात्कामवृत्तोऽपि पार्थ ब्रह्म पुरस्कृतः । जयेन्नक्तञ्चरान्सर्वान्सपुरोहितधूर्ततः ॥ तस्मात्तापत्य यत्किञ्चिन्नृणां श्रेय इहेप्सितम् । तस्मिन्कर्मणि योक्तव्या दान्तात्मानः पुरोहिताः ॥ वेदे षडङ्गे निरताः शुचयः सत्यवादिनः । धर्म्मात्मानः कृतात्मानः स्युर्नृपाणां पुरोहिताः ॥ जयश्च नियतो राज्ञः स्वर्गश्च तदनन्तरम् । यस्य स्याद्धर्मविद्वाग्मी पुरोधाः शीलवाञ्शुचिः ॥ लाभं लब्धुमलब्धं वा लब्धं वा परिरक्षितुम् । पुरोहितं प्रकुर्वीत राजा गुणसमन्वितम् ॥ पुरोहितमते तिष्ठेद्य इच्छेद्भूतिमात्मनः । प्राप्तुं वा सुमतीं सर्वां सर्वशः सागराम्बराम ॥ ### [c8.s2.91](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.91) ¹ \*Ibid.\*, 11-16. ### [c8.s2.92](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.92) ² Ch. cxix. ### [c8.s2.93](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.93) ³ \*Mbh.\*, \*Sabhā Parvan\*, v. 43. ### [c8.s2.94](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.94) ⁴ कुञ्जरस्येव संग्रामे परिग्रहाङ्कुशग्रहम् । ब्राह्मणैर्विप्रहीनस्य क्षत्रस्य क्षोभते बलम् ॥ (Mbh., \*Vana Parvan\*, xxvi. 15.) यथा हि सुमहानाग्निः कक्षं दहति सानिलः । तथा दहतिराजन्यौ ब्राह्मणेन समं रिपुम् ॥ (\*Ibid.\*, 17.) ### [c8.s2.95](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.95) न हि केवलशौर्येण तापल्याभिजनेन च । जयेदब्राह्मणः कश्चिद्भूमिं भूमिपतिःक्वचित् ॥ तस्मादेवं विजानोहि कुरूणां वंशवर्धन । ब्राह्मणप्रमुखं राज्यं शक्यं पालयितुं चिरम् ॥ (Mbh., Ādi Parvan, clxxxvi. 77-84.) ### [c8.s2.96](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.96) In the \*Śanti Parvan\* again there are some important statements a perusal of which would be a profitable study. Bhīṣma the great preceptor advises Yudhiṣṭhira:¹ ‘Do all your acts in conjunction with your \*purohita\*.’ Who is a true \*purohita\*? Bhīṣma answers² that he alone must be appointed as the \*purohita\* who will help the king in protecting the righteous and putting down the unrighteous. ### [c8.s2.97](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.97) ¹ अथ सर्वाणि कुर्वीथा कार्याणि सपुरोहितः । (lxxi. 4.) ### [c8.s2.98](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.98) ² य एव तु सतो रक्षेदतश्च निवर्तयेत् । स एव राज्ञा कर्तव्यो राजन् राजपुरोहितः ॥ (lxxii. 2.) ### [c8.s2.99](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.99) Then is given the king’s behaviour towards such an official.³ By service, obedience and following his \*svadharma\*, honoured by the \*purohita\*, a wise king earns an undying name. In chapter lxxiii, the qualifications and functions are set forth in instructive details. After giving a categorical list of qualifications Bhīṣma says that a king would be a mere nothing if he had no \*purohita\* to guide him. He would be ever in danger of the Rākṣasas, the Asuras, the Piçaśas, Uragas, Pakṣins and other enemies. He must do the warding off rites at prescribed times—\*vaiśvadeva bali\*, \*rudra homas\*, etc. It is said that the \*purohita\* washes the dirty linen of seven sinful \*malas\* of the king—wicked ministers, indifferent councillors, thieves, injustice, illegal punishment, not punishing the deserving, and cruelty in battle. He is further of considerable aid in the performance of sacrifices and other holy rites. By mutual amity and concord of both the Kṣatriyas and the Brahmans the people enjoy peace and good will.¹ ### [c8.s2.100](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.100) ³ शुश्रूषनहंवादो क्षवधर्मव्रतेस्थितः । तावता संस्कृतः प्राज्ञः चिरं यशसि तिष्ठति ॥ (Ibid., lxxii. 20.) ### [c8.s2.101](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.101) ¹ ब्रह्मक्षत्रं हि सर्वासां प्रजानां मूलमुच्यते ॥ (\*Śanti Parvan\*, lxxiii. 43.) क्षतं वै ब्रह्मणो योनिः योनिः क्षत्रस्य वै द्विजः ॥ (\*Ibid.\*, 49.) again ब्रह्म वर्धयति क्षत्रं क्षत्रतो ब्रह्म वर्धते । राज्ञः सर्वस्य चान्यस्य स्वामी राज्ञः पुरोहितः ॥ (\*Ibid.\*, 70.) ### [c8.s2.102](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.102) These statements demonstrate the indispensable office of the \*purohita\* who is a Brahman, and the fact that no superiority of class or caste is contemplated. On the other hand both are equal tending towards the common good of the people—the \*yogakshema\* of the state.² Hence his appointment precedes the anointing of the king.³ ### [c8.s2.103](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.103) ² \*Śanti Parvan\*, lxxiv. 3. ### [c8.s2.104](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.104) ³ तं चैव लब्ध्वाभिषिञ्चेत्तथा धर्मो विधीयते । (\*Ibid.\*, lxxiii. 67.) ### [c8.s2.105](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.105) One has the power of \*tapas\* and \*mantras\* (तपोमन्त्रबलं) and the other the strength of weapons and arms⁴ (अस्त्रबाहुबलं). It is certainly difficult to find the superiority of the nobility in the epic as Prof. Hopkins would make us believe.⁵ ### [c8.s2.106](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.106) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, lxxiv. 16. ### [c8.s2.107](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.107) ⁵ \*J.A.O.S.\*, vol. xiii, 151 ff. ### [c8.s2.108](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.108) NOTE ### [c8.s2.109](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.109) There seems to be some confusion among scholars as to the true social and legal position of the Brahman-Purohita in ancient Hindu society. The confusion is due to two causes. (1) The wrong interpretation or forced construction put upon certain passages in the different texts by scholars. (2) The apparent inconsistency of the \*Vedic\* texts themselves. The former is unaccountable and even inevitable, each savant looking at them from his own view point and judging them as such. As for the latter, the confusion among the different \*Vedic\* Schools and teachers is only so at the surface; but once we dive deep into the mysteries of their thoughts expressed through their writings we clearly see that in fundamentals all are essentially of the same idea. It may be that in trifling detail they may disagree, and even this disagreement would tend towards agreement in the main. We will take an example of these two reasonings to make ourselves more clear. Both the \*Vājasaneyi Saṃhita\* (Śukla, \*Yajur Veda\*, chap. ix. 40 and chap. x. 17 and 18) and the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\* contain the following text: ### [c8.s2.110](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.110) विशा एष वो ### [c8.s2.111](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.111) अमो राजा सोमोऽस्माकं ब्राह्मणानां राजा ॥ ### [c8.s2.112](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.112) Eggeling translates this: ‘This (man), O ye (people), is your king; Soma is the king of us Brahmanas.’ (ix. 4. 3. 16), Jayaswal translates it thus: ‘This man, O ye people, is your king, he is Soma, king of us Brahmanas!’ (\*Hindu Polity\*, part ii, p. 30). Again in the \*Ratnahavis\* portion of the \*Rājasūya\* sacrifice one of the \*ratnins\* is mentioned to be the \*akṣavāpa\*, and this term is translated as the ‘keeper of the dice,’ alluding to the game of gambling. Jayaswal again repudiates this explanation on the authority of the \*Kauṭalīya\* where the \*akṣaśāla\* and \*akṣapaṭala\* and similar technical terms occur referring to the keeper of accounts and the hall of the office of the Accountant-General. It is ridiculous for a consecrated monarch to get the approval of a gambling officer and we agree with Jayaswal that it does not at all point out to the officer of dice but of accounts, finance being the vital department for any administrative machinery. ### [c8.s2.113](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.113) By way of illustration as to the second reasoning, viz., the confusion of texts themselves, the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\* rules (viii. 24-25). ‘Verily the Gods do not eat the food offered by the king who is without a \*purohita\*. Therefore let the king who wishes to sacrifice place a Brahmana at the head (पुरो अधोत ।). With this we may compare another text (iv. ii.), (quoted by Jayaswal, \*Hindu Polity\*, part ii, p. 31) of the \*Vājasaneyi Brāhmaṇa Upaniṣad\* ‘तस्मात् क्षत्रात्परं नास्ति तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमधस्तादुपास्ते राजसूये’। ‘Hence there is none above the Ruler, hence the Brahman sits under Kṣatriya in the \*Rājasūya\*.’ Thus whereas in one text the Purohita is placed at the head in the other he is placed under the Kṣatriya. This inconsistency disappears in the light of the following texts:— ### [c8.s2.114](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.114) In the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\*, (Eggeling Trans., v. 4. 4. 15) ‘a Brahmana then hands to him the sacrificial (wooden sword . . . .), the sacrificial sword being a thunderbolt, that Brahmana, by means of that thunderbolt makes the king to be weaker than himself : for indeed the king who is weaker than a Brahmana, is stronger than his enemies. . . .’ ‘Again after the consecration when the king addresses the \*purohita\* for blessing the latter pronounces five times ‘Thou art Brahman.’ (\*Ibid.\*, 4. 4. 9-13). There is a special chapter (\*Adhyaya\* v.) in the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\* where the position occupied by the \*purohita\* is given with instructions in detail. Without the \*purohita\* who is necessarily a Brahman, a king is not honoured by the gods. \*Āpastamba\* declares that the Brahman alone must be a teacher, though he knows of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya teachers also. But it must be remarked that a \*purohita\* was not necessarily a teacher or a \*ṛtvik\*. But it has been a long-standing practice that the \*purohita\* sometimes did the duties of the ācārya and ṛtvik. Vasiṣṭha, for example, plays all roles in the Rāmāyaṇa (Bala Kāṇḍa, chap. viii). He officiates as a ṛtvik (chap. xviii. 21-24) is engaged in performing saṃskara rites for the princes (vi. 128) he is consecrating Rāma. Thus in one and the same person is united the functions of these three. Fick notes some evidence from the Pāli literature to this effect. (Trans., Matra, p. 168 and 169.) It is further seen that his office is ordinarily hereditary and ties of friendship are strong. (Ibid., 170.) The purohita is characterized as the āhavanīya fire, his wife the Gārhaspatya, and his son the anvāhāvyapacana fire—the sacred fires leading the king to heaven. Again the purohita is Agni Vaisvānara, possessed of five missiles, speech, feet, skin, heart, and organ. Hence he must be adorned and made to feel happy (Ait. Br., viii. 24). The purohita is analogous to Bṛhaspati, the purohita of Gods. Under his guidance and care a king could overcome his enemies and make his people contented and prosperous (Ibid., 25). Again ‘in whose reign the Brahmana goeth first,’ the people pay homage to him who wins plenty of wealth (Ibid., 26). That Brahman is selected for this office who knows the three purohitas and the three appointers. ‘Agni is the purohita, the Earth the appointer. Āditya is the purohita, the atmosphere the appointer, Āditya is the purohita, the sky is the appointer’ (Ibid., 27). Keith (H. O. S., vol. 25). ### [c8.s2.115](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2.115) Let us now turn our attention to what place the purohita is assigned in the estates of the realm in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, another important work of this category. In the section called Ratnahavis of the rājasūya, the purohita figures as one of the recipients of the sacrificial honours. The king goes to his house and prepares a sap for Bṛhaspati,—the purohita of the Gods. He is one of the Ratnani (v. 3. 1. 2). Again it is the purohita who anoints the king by sprinkling waters on him in front, and prays for the latter’s energy and vigour to withstand his enemies (Ibid., v. 4. 2. 1-3). He again hands the sphya or wooden sword to him, symbolical of a thunderbolt to overcome his foes (v. 4. 4. 15). So far the functions signify those of a modern Bishop or Archbishop. But his station in the administration was indeed a more exalted one. It is said that the Kṣatriya and the purohita make one complete whole. The one without the other is feeble. One is the compliment of the other (Ibid., vi. 6. 3. 12). If both of them are united, that is, if spiritual power is associated with the temporal power, then that state could be all powerful. Thus the inconsistency of the texts is only apparent but not a fact. We must not confuse the Hindu conception of spiritual power and its relation to temporal power with that of the mediæval Holy Roman Empire. ## Linked texts (27) - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.7.6) — Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.1.10) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.3.150) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Yājñavalkyasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.yajnavalkya.1.200) — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.8.24) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.2.33.32) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.2.4.4) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Jātaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.khuddaka.jataka.38) — Pāli - [Baudhāyanadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.baudhayana.1.10.18) — Baudhāyana, Sanskrit - [Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.vasistha.6.23) — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit - [Bhāgavatapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.bhagavata.8.23.14) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.taittiriya.2.7.1) — Sanskrit - [Gautamadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.gautama.11.12) — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Raghuvaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.rama.raghuvamsa.11.58) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Vājasaneyisaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.suklayajur*vajasaneyi.9.40) — Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva.3.18) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Agnipurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.agni) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Garuḍapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.garuda) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Āpastambadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.apastamba) — Āpastamba, Sanskrit - [Pañcaviṃśabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.pancavimsa) — Sanskrit - [Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bhasa.pratijnayaugandharayana) — Bhāsa, Sanskrit - [Brāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana) — Sanskrit - [Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma) - [Purāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana) — Sanskrit - [Hāritadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.harita) — Hārīta, Sanskrit - [Saṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.med.samhita) - [Kāmandakīya Nītisāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kamandaka_nitisara) — Kāmandaki, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2) · Pramāṇa