[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 # Hindu Administrative Institutions c8: Chapter III. Machinery of Organization Hindu Administrative Institutions c8 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c8.s1 Sec. i. The Crown Prince](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1) — 52 parts - [c8.s2 Sec. ii. The Purohita](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s2) — 115 parts - [c8.s3 Sec. iii. The Royal Council](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s3) — 95 parts - [c8.s4 Appendix: The General Assembly](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s4) — 45 parts ### Chapter III. Machinery of Organization ### Sec. i. The Crown Prince ### [c8.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.1) THE Crown Prince is mentioned as one among the eighteen \*tirthas\* of ancient Indian historical literature.¹ ### [c8.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.2) ¹ The eighteen \*tirthas\* of Sanskrit literature are \*mantrin\* (chief minister), \*purohita\* (adviser in religion), \*senāpati\* (commander-in-chief), \*yuvarāja\* (Crown Prince), \*dauvārika\* (head door-keeper or palace mayor), \*antarvaṃśika\* (chamberlain), \*Praśāsṭṛ\* (secretary in charge of prisons), \*samāhartṛ\* (collector-general), \*sannidhātṛ\* (finance minister), \*pradeṣṭṛ\* (chief police officer), \*nāyaka\* (leader of infantry), \*pauravyavahārika\* (judge at the capital), \*karmāntika\* (director of mines and industries), \*mantrapariṣadadhyakṣa\* (secretary to the council-assembly), \*daṇḍapāla\* (leader of the army corps), \*durgapāla\* (the officer in charge of fortresses), \*antapāla\* (the chief of frontier guards), and \*āṭavika\* (forest chiefs).\[^2\] Dr. Nag takes \*nāyaka-Paura\* as one official and \*vyavahārika\* as a separate entity (\*Les Theories Diplomatique\*, p. 38), while Jayaswal makes \*nāyaka\* (generalissimo), \*Paura\* (governor of the capital), and \*vyavahārika\* (Judge) as three distinct \*tirthas\*. In his classification he has left out \*āṭavika\* and the reason for the exclusion of this department has not been furnished. (\*Hindu Polity\*, pt. ii, pp. 133-134; \*Arthaśāstra\*, i. 12; Trivandrum edition, vol. i, p. 57). ### [c8.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.3) It is a general rule that the prince must follow the king, his father, in all acts and deeds. But Kauṭalya says there is a limitation even here. He need not be guided by the advice of the monarch if it would cost his life or would rouse the fiery spirit of the general masses of the people.² In these two cases it would not be disobedience to the rules of \*dharma\*. Under the second plea Lakṣmaṇa asks Rāma to disobey Daśaratha’s orders of forest life for fourteen years, for all the citizens not excluding women and children were greatly perturbed at the king’s orders to his eldest son;³ and they continued grief-stricken till sometime after Rāma had gone away to the forest. Vālmīki exhibits the Crown Prince Rāma as the idol of the people since he never passed the limits of \*dharma\*. It would not have been \*adharma\*¹ for Rāma to disobey even King Daśaratha in the face of strong public opinion in his favour. Rāma actually wanted to set up a higher ideal of a Kṣatriya than by following the rules of \*kṣatriya-dharma\* like a worldly prince.² ### [c8.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.4) ² \*Arthaśāstra\*, i. 17. ### [c8.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.5) ³ \*Ayodhya Kāṇḍa\*, ch. 40, 41. ### [c8.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.6) ¹ \*Arthaśāstra\*, i. 18. ### [c8.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.7) ² \> क्षात्रधर्ममहं त्यक्ष्ये ह्यधर्मं धर्मसंहितम् । ### [c8.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.8) By mere accident of birth as the eldest son of the reigning king the prince was not accepted a \*yuvarāja\* or heir-apparent. But the whole gamut of ceremonies was to be gone through before the prince was declared the crown prince. This was the \*abhiṣechanam\* of a prince to the status of a crown prince. A practical instance of this is seen in the preparations made for Rāma’s \*abhiṣechanam\* by King Daśaratha.³ This consecration alone secured for the prince the right to ascend the throne after the sitting monarch. ### [c8.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.9) ³ \*Ayodhya Kāṇḍa\*, ch. 3–6. ### [c8.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.10) As the prince is the future pillar of the state no little attention was paid to the formation of his character and in the teaching of good conduct even when young. To this end the system of education enjoined is mainly responsible. Hence the education of the prince was attended to even from infancy. According to the \*Raghuvamśa\*⁴ it would appear that as early as ### [c8.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.11) ⁴ \> स वृत्तचूलश्छलकाकपक्षरैर्माल्यपुतैः सवयोभिरन्वितः । ### [c8.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.12) क्षुद्रैर्नृशंसैः लुब्धैश्च सेवितं पापकर्मभिः ॥ (Ayodhya Kāṇḍa, 109. 20.) ### [c8.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.13) लिपयेर्थाबद्धगणेन वाङ्मयं नदोमुखेनेव समुद्रमाविशत् ॥ (iii. 28.) ### [c8.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.14) the third year of his age when the ceremony of tonsure was generally performed the prince was placed under the guidance of good teachers who instructed him in the alphabet (lipi) and mathematics (samkhyāna). In his eleventh year, the age for investiture ceremony,¹ he was taught a course of higher studies comprising the three Vedas, anvikṣikī or logic, vārtta or economics, and daṇḍanīti or science of politics. There were separate teachers, perhaps specialists, in charge of each subject. The very fact that the latter two subjects which were secular in character were taught by adhyakṣas or heads of administrative departments, vaktāraḥ and prayoktāraḥ, i.e., expounders and administrators of law, affords tangible proof that the educational training was no less practical than theoretical. Nor were these alone the subjects studied and pursued. Education was not considered complete if the prince had not either himself studied, or heard the Itihāsas read to him; besides he was taught the various branches of military science relating to the use and handling of different arms and armaments. Even here there was no indiscriminate learning of this subject now and that afterwards. A time-table was previously drawn up and the studies were pursued according to it. The mornings were generally fixed for learning the theory and practice of arms. The afternoon was devoted to the hearing of the Itihāsa.² ### [c8.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.15) ¹ Manu, ii. 361. ### [c8.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.16) ² Apparently this hearing and not study of the Itihāsas has a value of its own. It may be that the prince might not be taxed in his impressionable age with a heavy curricula of studies. The study of the Itihāsas is quite essential for a prince, for he must know the history of his predecessors in his own state and elsewhere; how they had ruled, and how far they had been successful in their policy and administration and what new lines could be chalked out if he were to have an efficient machinery. All these and more are found richly illustrated in the Itihāsa literature not to speak of other texts. The time of studentship would not be sufficient if he ### [c8.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.17) The evening and the early portion of the night were devoted to learning new and rare facts and memorising old lessons.¹ ### [c8.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.18) ¹ \*Arthaśāstra\*, i. 17-18. ### [c8.s1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.19) The prince was expected to finish his higher studies by the end of the sixteenth year when he was legally allowed to enter the \*gṛhasthāśrama\*. There is evidence to show that education was not at home but at a public place where teachers were available. Away from their parents and deprived of a life of luxury at the palace, they cultivated the regular habits of mind and body. The result was something invaluable. It nurtured in time the virtue of discipline (\*vidyāvinīta\*). If all his studies could not advance him in the direction of this higher quality of discipline, woe to such studies! It was a practical and moral education that ancient India gave to her young.² Even though the prince had completed the student's course and got married, he was not placed in independent situations. A period of apprenticeship as a subordinate to an administrative head was to be gone through.³ After he was declared competent and worthy of occupying an independent position, he was appointed to responsible posts like the general-in-chief of an army, governor of a province, or consecrated as an heir-apparent.⁴ ### [c8.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.20) ² Cf. Śukra, ii. 41-50; Agni, 225. 1-3. ### [c8.s1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.21) ³ \*Arthaśāstra\*, i. 18. ### [c8.s1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.22) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, Bk. i. 17. ### [c8.s1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.23) One would ordinarily expect the co-operation of a prince with his father the king. He is to be the right hand, right eye and right ear to the sovereign as the councillors are the left hand, left eye and left ear.⁵ Śukrācārya ### [c8.s1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.24) ⁵ Śukra, ii. 12-13. ### [c8.s1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.25) were to study everything. Hence the device of the institution of the sūtas, who narrated the stories to these princes at a certain fixed time of the day. See the author's contribution 'on the Sūta in ancient Indian Literature,' The Swadesamitran English Weekly, March 15, 1925. ### [c8.s1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.26) explains how a prince ought to behave towards the king and his subjects.¹ The prince was generally under the control of the sovereign, and if he would prove useful he must be advanced gradually to occupy the throne seat. But there may be cases where the prince would behave lawfully and still would be an eye-sore to his father. In such cases it is laid down that the prince could extricate himself to some place beyond the power of his father's sovereignty. One such was to take to forest life.² Rāma's going to the forest is justified by the handmaid of Kaikeyī, the queen, representing that Rāma was a diplomat attributing a motive to which he was alien.³ In much later days we find Shah Jahan's preparedness to go to Mecca against the ill-treatment of Jahangir and Nur Jahan. ### [c8.s1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.27) ¹ Śukra, ii, 35-50. ### [c8.s1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.28) ² Arthaśāstra, i, 17. ### [c8.s1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.29) ³ तथाप्युत्पद्यतमन्यस्मिन् पुत्रे दारेषु वा स्निह्यन्तं अरण्यायापृच्छेत् । ### [c8.s1.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.30) If again an honest prince would apprehend imprisonment or secret death at the hands of his father, he might ally himself with a good \*sāmanta\* chieftain, contract influential marriages, collect an army and win over parties in the state. When the Pāṇḍavās were sent on the \*vāranāvada-yātra\* with the ultimate design on the part of Duryodhana to bring about their destruction, Vidura scented the danger awaiting them and made mention of it to the Pāṇḍavās. Through a secret underground passage the latter escaped to the forests where ### [c8.s1.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.31) एवं गृहाविरोधेन राजपुत्रो वसन् गृहे ॥ विद्यया कर्मणा शोलैः प्रजाःसंरंजयन् मुदा । त्यागो च सत्वसंपन्नः सर्वानुकुर्यात्वशेस्वके ॥ ### [c8.s1.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.32) Bhīma married the \*āṭaviki\* Hiḍimbi and begot on her a son Ghaṭotkacha. In the disguise of Brahmans the Pāṇḍavās again reached the Pañchāla territory where the king of that land had arranged for a \*svayamvara\* (marriage by choice) for his daughter (प्रवीरपुरुषकन्या). Arjuna married her and fought along with his brothers for their rights backed by the Pañchāla king. The \*sāmanta\* who was of help to them was Vetrakīya.¹ ### [c8.s1.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.33) ¹ \*Mbh.\*, \*Ādi Parvan\*, ch. 154 ff. ### [c8.s1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.34) Further those princes who are unjustly treated by the kings could leave the state and work in gold or ruby mines, or join with their maternal relatives and begin intriguing against the monarch.² By way of illustration we can say that the Pāṇḍavās took to various callings at \*Virāṭa nagara\* and joined finally Kṛṣṇa who was their near relative through their mother. ### [c8.s1.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.35) ² एकचरस्सुवर्णाकरमणिरगहेमरूप्यण्याकरकर्मान्तानाजीवेत् ।........ मातुः परिजनोपग्रहेण वा चेष्टेत । (\*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. i. 17.) ### [c8.s1.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.36) On the other hand if the prince would misbehave and the king was impartial he could be conciliated in the first instance by diplomacy and promise of sovereignty if he happened to be the only son. If he could not get rectified he might be sent on dangerous foreign expeditions so that he might not prove a source of anxiety and mischief. Even if this were impossible he could be imprisoned, or, as a last resort, may be put to death.³ ### [c8.s1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.37) ³ \*Ibid.\*, Bk. ix, Sec. 3. ### [c8.s1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.38) Bharadvāja advocates secret murder of really refractory princes. But the sage Viśālākṣa takes a different view and recommends that they must be kept under restraint in certain isolated places. If this method were not pursued there would be the extinction of the Kṣatriya race as it were.¹ In fact Aśvathāma’s killing of the child in the womb of Uttara would have extirpated the military race almost but for the timely help of Kriṣṇa. He gave life to the dead child and the latter was the famous king Parīkṣit. According to Parāśara these recalcitrant princes could be removed to the frontier and kept far away from the activity of the state. Yayāti sent his rebel sons to the care of the frontier guards. But the sage Kauṇapadanta is of opinion that it was not a proper line, for it would give a sure handle to the enemy-king. The latter would endeavour to pursuade these princes and would make mischief against their father, the king. This is well seen in the case of the later Mughal Emperors. So it is recommended that they could be placed under their maternal relations. Mādhavagupta and Kumāragupta were sent to the court of Prabhākaravardhana, the father of Harṣa. Kauśika’s sons were sent to their uncle Dakṣaprajāpati. Kauṭalya is not satisfied with these methods. Practical man that he was he believed in the moral value of the special training and good discipline born of healthy influence of environment and association. He says that a prince should be taught both in dharma and artha so that he would not fall into immoral temptations of an alluring nature.² ### [c8.s1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.39) ¹ ‘नृशंसमदृष्टवधः क्षत्रबोजविनाशश्चेति’ विशालाक्षः । तस्मादेकस्थानावरोधः श्रेयानिति । (Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. 17.) ### [c8.s1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.40) ² Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. 17. ### [c8.s1.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.41) There are scholars who make capital out of these recommendations of the Arthaśāstra by characterising them as immoral. Judged by theoretical standards of ethics they may be described as unmoral. But it must be remembered that \*dharma\* in India is wedded even to secular arts. The administration of the state to be efficient, to be beneficial, must depend on the character of the monarch guiding its destinies. If a prince, the king of to-morrow, is devoid of character (\*dharma\* and \*nīti\*) he could not but be treated as an enemy to the state.¹ We have innumerable examples to show how princes like the sons of Yayāti and Viśvāmitra became menials owing to the violation of the orders of the king, and how on the other hand Paraśurāma and Rāma who showed unquestioning obedience to their parents became successful ultimately in life.² ### [c8.s1.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.42) ¹ नोतिवियुक्तः पुत्र इवशत्रुः । (\*Bṛhaspati\*, ii. 50.) ### [c8.s1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.43) ² \*Śukra\*, ii. 83-85 and 78-79. ### [c8.s1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.44) But a prince duly honoured by the king and esteemed by the citizens enjoyed the confidence of the state. He was made the crown prince and drew a handsome allowance of 48,000 paṇas yearly, the highest remuneration equal to that of the \*purohita\*, commander-in-chief, king's mother, and queen.³ Further he enjoyed the rare privilege of not being watched by the Intelligence department with the \*purohita\* and the commander-in-chief. All the other fifteen \*tīrthas\* were liable to be watched by the members of that Intelligence department. ### [c8.s1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.45) ³ \*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. v. 3. ### [c8.s1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.46) Usually each was endowed with a small territorial unit over which he was the head but still answerable to the monarch. The position was equal to that of a Governor or a Viceroy of a province of the modern days. This is evident both from the \*Rāmāyaṇa\* and the \*Bhāgavata Purāṇa\*. In the former Bharata's two sons were given rulerships of Takṣaśīla and Puṣkalāvati, two small states in the country of Gandhāra; Satrughna's two sons to be the governors of Mathura and Vidiśa; ### [c8.s1.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.47) Lakṣmaṇa’s two sons were heads of two cities in the state of Kampatha and Rāma’s two sons over the northern and southern portions of Kosala-deśa.¹ The \*Bhāgavata Purāṇa\*² mentions details as to the division of the empire of Yayāti under his sons. Yadu got the south of the empire, Turvasu the west, Druhyu the south-west, and Anu the north, while Purū was the emperor of all parts. ### [c8.s1.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.48) ¹ \*Rāmāyaṇa\*, vii. 101. 11; 108. 9-11; 102. 1; 107. 17. ### [c8.s1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.49) ² ix. 17. 21-3. ### [c8.s1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.50) In the empire of Aśoka again the princes of the blood royal commonly designated Kumāras were appointed provincial Governors. Four such Kumāra viceroyalties are mentioned in the edicts of Aśoka, one in Takṣaśīla in the frontier province of Gandhāra, a second at Svarṇagiri (\*Kanakagiri\*?), third at Tosali (\*Dhauli\*) in Kalinga, and the fourth at Ujjain.³ These princes were entrusted with the right of appointing their own district officials ‘as no doubt was the practice during the Gupta rule’. Though these princes enjoyed certain privileges still their power did not go unchecked by higher authorities. The mention of the term Mahāmātras in the edicts shows that the Kumāra did not act by himself but always took counsel of the Mahāmātras⁴ or the council attached to these princes. ### [c8.s1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.51) ³ D. R. Bhandarkar, \*Aśoka\*, pp. 49-50. ### [c8.s1.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8.s1.52) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, p. 52. ### 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. _First 164 of 334 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8)_ ## Linked texts (46) - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.1.12) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.2.33.32) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Yājñavalkyasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.yajnavalkya.1.200) — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.7.6) — Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.3.150) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.2.4.4) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.taittiriya.2.7.1) — Sanskrit - [Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.vasistha.6.23) — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.8.24) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva.3.18) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, 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 - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki.6.17) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Bhāgavatapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.bhagavata.8.23.14) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Gautamadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.gautama.11.12) — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*maitrayani.4.7.4) — Sanskrit - [Chāndogyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.chandogya.5.3.6) — Sanskrit - [Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.brhadaranyaka.6.2) — 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 - [Agnipurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.agni) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Garuḍapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.garuda) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Kālikāpurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.upa.sakta.kalika) — Sanskrit - [Matsyapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.matsya) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Maṇimēkalai](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sangam.five_great_epics.manimekalai) — Cīttalaic Cāttaṉār, Tamil - [Taittirīyasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*taittiriya) — Sanskrit - [Tolkāppiyam](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sangam.grammar.tolkappiyam) — Tolkāppiyar, Tamil - [Tirukkuṟaḷ](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sangam.eighteen_lesser.tirukkural) — Tiruvaḷḷuvar, Tamil - [Āpastambadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.apastamba) — Āpastamba, Sanskrit - [Bṛhaspatismṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.uddhrta.brhaspati) — Bṛhaspati, Sanskrit - [Kātyāyanasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.uddhrta.katyayana) — Kātyāyana (smṛtikāra), Sanskrit - [Cilappatikāram](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sangam.five_great_epics.cilappatikaram) — Iḷaṅkō Aṭikaḷ, Tamil - [Harṣacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.harsacarita) — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, 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 - [Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.cii) - [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) - [Bṛhaspatinīti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.brhaspatiniti) — Bṛhaspati, Sanskrit - [Bṛhaddharmapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.upa.sakta.brhaddharma.3.3) — Sanskrit - [Kāmandakīya Nītisāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kamandaka_nitisara.11.68) — Kāmandaki, Sanskrit - [Rājanītiratnākara](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.rajanitiratnakara) — Caṇḍeśvara Ṭhakkura, Sanskrit - [Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.kalacuri.hathigumpha-inscription-of-kharavela) — Prakrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c8) · Pramāṇa