History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.277.3

v4.c62.277.3

312 regard him as distinct from mantrins. The purohita was often hereditary. Acc. to Kauṭilya quoted above he was to employ means declared in the Atharvaveda to remove calamities, divine and human. The great divine calamities acc. to Kauṭilya IV. 3 are fire, flood, disease, famine, rats, wild elephants, snakes and evil spirits.¹⁵⁸ According to Manu VII. 78 the purohita was concerned with the religious rites laid down in the śrauta and gṛhya sūtras and Āp. II. 5. 10. 14-17 show that the purohita had complete jurisdiction in matters of penance for offences. Vas. (19. 40-42) provides that if the king lets off an offender deserving to be punished the king had to fast for a day and the purohita for three days and to perform the heavy penance of Kṛcchra if the king punished the innocent. According to most authorities he played a role that was pre-eminently religious. He is not mentioned among the 10 limbs of the sabhā in the administration of justice. Kāt. 24 (quoted in S. V. p. 20) does not require him to be an expert in arthaśāstra, though Kāt. 56 quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 2 and Sm. C. (II. p. 14) say that the king should enter the Hall of Justice with learned brāhmaṇas, the ministers, the chief justice, the purohita &c. Yāj. I. 312 and the Mit. on Yāj. I. 312-313 on the other hand prescribe that even after consulting all mantrins, the king was finally to consult the purohita in all secular and religious matters. The Nītivākyāmṛta (purohitasamuddeśa) p.