14 The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

14 The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

14. The Arthasastra of Kautilya

There are three words in ancient Sanskrit Literature that are used very often in the same sepse viz. Arthasastra, Dandaniti and Rajasāstra or Rājaniti or Rājanitisāstra or simply Nitisāstra. The Mahābhārata descants on Rāja dharma in several parvans, as in Sabhā 5 ( the chapter called kaccit-praśna), Vanaparva 150, Uddyoga (chap. 33-34). In Sabbā 5 one hundred verses occur on Rājaniti; for example, ( verse 41 refers to 18 tirthas (state dignitaries) tested by spies (as in Kaut. I. 12. 20), verse 47 refers to amātyas beyond the reach of upadhās (cf. Kauṭ. I. 10. 1ff). The Santiparva devotes more than 100 chapters to Rāja dharma from chap. 56. Sānti, chap. 58 (1-4) names160s the

1602 aralaruites Portret p. 18 of faget’s comment on BTK

section. 150a एतत्ते राजधर्माणां नवनीतं युधिष्ठिर । बृहस्पतिर्हि भगवान्यायं धर्म प्रशंसति ॥

विशालाक्षश्व भगवान्काव्यश्चैव महातपाः । सहस्राक्षो महेन्द्रश्च तथा प्राचेतसो 46: 11 HOTTET HTETETA TIRPORT NA: I TIJ TIETTOAITI am stranica: i Taha gira yetuai ll 58. 1-4; RULES 59. 29 states that Brahmā composed a treatise on dharma, artha paid kāma in ope buodred thousand chapters ( 59. 80 ); Sad kara li da called Vigalakṣa, shortened it and hence it was called Vaiteltkaa

( Continued on the next page)

150

expounders of Rājaśāstra (Rājaśāstraplanetāraḥ), viz. Bphas pati, Viśālākṣa, Kavya, Indra, Prācetasa Manu, Bharadvāja, Gauraśiras. Rājaniti is called “Rūjyatantra” in the Malila plate of king Dhruvasena II of the year 323 of Valabhi Gupta era (i. e. 641-42 A. D.) in JOI. (Baroda ), vol. X. No. 2 at p. 127. Rūjaniti or Nitiśāstra is described as the nectar or quintessence of the ocean of Arthasūstra in Kama nadakıya Nitisāra (1. 6). Kautilya himself employs the word Rājaniti in V. 4. 3. Rājaniti (Government and Politics ) is dealt with in Dharmasūtras and smrtis also (briefly or at length ) as in Gaut. Dh. S. (X-XIII), Manu (VII-VIII ), Yājsa valkya (I. 309-68 and II. 1-307 ). Dharmaśāstras deal with all aspects of society and therefore they deal with Rājadharma also. Dandaniti is another name for the Sāstra which has to be considered. Daula literally means ‘a stick or staff of a tree for driving cattle (vide Rg. VII. 33. 6) but it came to mean also the power of control and punishment’ i. e. it conveys the power of the king or supreme ruler called “Dandadhara’ or ‘Dundadhāra’ to dispense justice and to punish wrong-doers. The Gaut. 1000 Dh. S. (XI. 28 ) states that the word “Danda’ conveys the idea of controlling (or suppressing) and (the king should keep under control (or suppress ) those who do not control themselves i. e. Dandaniti is the science of Government. Kautilya refers to it in the Arthaśāstra 1. 3-4. The Sānti

( Continued from the previous page) ( verse 82 ). Then Indra shortend it io to fire thousand chapters and it was called Bāhudantaka ( vorse 83 ), Bihaspati summarised it ipto 3000 obaptors and called it Bārhaspatya ( v. 84 ), then Karya shortened it into 1000 chap. ( v. 85). Sīnti 336, 38-46 repeats the topic of ono Inkh of rorsos on the whole of lokataotra’ and that Madu Svāyambhuva, Uśanas and Bșhaspati will propound the sāstra

and spread it in the world. 150b quet Halfgaar rart chia lot. 4. 7. Xl. 28 ; comparo

HeagTTU 225. 17 TEATECOST caufa que sigueurufo I CHATTEUS नाच्चैव तस्माद्दण्डं विदुर्बुधाः ॥ and शान्ति 59, 78; नित्यमुद्यतदण्डः स्यानित्यं विवृतपौरुषः । अच्छिद्रश्छिद्रदी च परेषां विवरानुगः ॥ नित्यमुद्यतदण्डस्य

ETTES 77: I arretaliu HCIA qugda FATTU7 ll … TAT aged after cos gala Il eta 140. 7–9 ; compare then ( अयोध्या० ) कच्चिन्नोग्रेण दण्डेन भशमुजितप्रजम् । राष्ट्रं तवानुमाननित Afau: aringan ll 100. 76

DONA

FOUNDED A 1917

14. The Arthasāstra of Kautilya

161

parva (in 59.78 ) gives the derivation of the word ‘Danda niti’ (as ‘Dandena niyate cedam dandam nayati vā punaḥı Daṇdnitir-iti khyātā trin lokān -abhivartate Il ) and advises the king to be always ready with the rod of punishment. Manu has a grand apotheosis of Danıla’ (in VII. 14-31 ), some of the verses occurring in the Matsyapurana chap. 225. The Dasakumāracarita (VIII ) narrates that king Ananta varmā, though endowed with all good qualities, did not feel much interest in Dandaniti and states that ācārya Vinnugupta prepared a compendium of it for the Maurya ( King). Here the Arthaśāstra of Kanṭilya is called Dandaniti. The Niti sāra of Kāmandaka also follows (in II. 15) Gaut. Dh. S. in deriving the word dandu, says that the power of punish ment is vested in the king and that the rules that guide the king are called Dandaniti! 1506 This means that the main purpose and province of Dandaniti is to set out the functions of the State and deal with the administration of its different organs.

Arthaśāstra literally means the scince of artha. Artha is one of the four purusārthas (Dharina, Artha, Kāma and Moksa ). Manu (II. 224 ) refers to different views on the respective eminence of these. The Mahābhārata and the Smrtis were well aware of the great part that artha ( material well-being, wealth ) played in men’s lives. Wealth depended on land and labour. The Mahābhanya remarks “a country is called ’ arthavan’ which has cows and crops” (arthavān ayam desa ucyate yasmin yavah sasyāni ca vartante ) on Vārtika 4 in Pān. V. 2. 135 (Kielhorn’s ed. Vol. II. p. 40). The Drona parva (7.1) speaks of Minari Arthavidyā ano Vanaparva ( 35.21 ) states that Manu declared Rājadharmas. Unless there existed some authority that regulated the people and their doings there would have been chaos and no security. Hence the ruler or the king was the most important institution in society and rules for the king’s guidance were called Rājadharma or Rajaniti. Arthaśāstra therefore came to be identified with Rajaustiśāstra ( or simply Nītiśāstra ). A special vame (viz. Vārta ) was viven to the three viz. agriculture, rearing cattle, trade and commerce (vānijyuy. including various arts. Vide Sabhāparva 5. 83, Vanapambe

1500 दमो दण्ड इति ख्यातस्तास्थ्याइण्डो महीपतिः । तस्य नीतिर्दण्डनीतिर्नयनान्त्रीकर

Faceed 1974. II 16,

Bhanda162

History of Dharmatdatra

160, 30-31, Sāntiparva 59. 33, 68, 35, 268. 3. The epic says * Vārtāmūlo hyayam lokastraiyyā vai dhāryate sada’ ( Santi 68. 35 ). The Rāmāyaṇa also (II. 100. 47 ) says ’this world when it resorts to Vārtā prospers happily (vārtāyām samsritastāta lokoyam sukham-edhate )’. Kautilya makes it clear that Arthaśāstra and Vārtā were distinct and yet Vārtā was a subject of study for the king; it was one of the three or four Rajavidyās (vide Arthaśāstra I. 4. 4, Manu VII. 43).

Arthasāstra ju its technical sense is somewhat wider in meaning than Dandapīti and includes politics, economics, law and justice, but was narrower in scope than Dharma sastra. It was said to be an Upaveda of the Atharvaveda, according to the Viṣṇupurāṇa 180d III. 6. 28, Vāyu 61. 79 and Brahmānda 35. 88-89. It is therefore stated by Yāj. ( II. 21 ) that in case of conflict between Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra the former is stronger. The Mit, on Yūj. makes this clear ( vide note below ). 1606

Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi first contributed a paper to J. V. O. I. ( Tirupati ) Vol. I. pp. 79-89 on Cāksusiya Artha sāstra and in Vol. III. (pp. 99-116 ) published the text of that work in four patalas. In J. V. 0. I. Vol. IV he con tributed an Introduction (pp. 123-128 ) and notes on the sutras (pp. 129-140 and in Vol. VI. pp. 129-140). The text of Cākṣusiya begins with a verse saying that it is possible for a single man (or in one birth ) following the path of Nitiśāstra to conquer the earth provided he has the necessary effort (or determination ). The first sūtra is ‘Now then I shall expound Arthasāstra which is the means of accomplishing the goals of human existence’. Then in 67 sutras it enumerates the topics of Arthaśāstra and covers almost the same topics as are found in Kautilya’s Artha. sāstra. A few sūtras (which are all brief ) may be set out here by way of sample. (1) Sapta prakrtayaḥ; ( 2 ) Sapta vidhā pravrttih; (3) Sapta vyasanāni; (5) tisro vidyāḥ;

150d आयर्वेदो धनुर्वेदो गान्धर्वश्चेति ते त्रयः । अर्थशास्त्रं चतुर्थ च विद्या अष्टादशैव

AT: II fars g. III. 6. 28 ; ary 61. 79 ( almost same words ), quoted hy Aparārka p. 6 and Kalpataru ( Brahma ) p. 22. Both quote from fagurgerut. The word Uparoda occurs in Dronaparva 202.75

and io sinti. 187. 31. 1600 yataktaia taifa TABENTETHE Raafera I preferred

sintetta erfarwisinaasapparat ferastafari fact, on app

1.1. The Arthuśtīstra of Kuntil ya

153

( 9 ) Șat-trimsatguno rājā ; (10) Pañcavimśatigunosmātyaḥ; ( 11 ) Șadvimśatigunah senāpatiriti; and so on. The last sutra is Dvividha ācāra iti tadyathā-daivo mānusasceti’. The 2nd patala begins ; ‘atha sūtrārtham vartayisyāmah’ ( we shall comment on the meaning of the sūtras ).

Mr. Kavi (Vol. I. pr. 84ff’), relying on the name Cāksusīya (Caksusa was one of the first seven Manus acc. to Manusmrti I. 62.) and the close correspondence of certain sutras of the Cākṣusiya with the sūtras in Arthaśāstra, holds that Kautilya borrows from the Cāksusiya (p. 82 of J. V. 0. I. Vol. I). This is quite wrong. The reality is just the opposite of this. It is ridiculuous to hold that the erudite author of the Arthaśāstra had to borrow from a small beginner’s primer for his work of vast extent. Besides, the extant Kautiliya quotes several individual predecessors such as Kaunapadanta, Pisuna, Bāhudantiputra, Bhāradvāja (and once Kaninka Bh.), Vatavyādhi and Viśālākṣa and a few schools such as the Ambhiyas, Auśanasas, Pārāśaras, Bārhas patyas and Māpavas, but nowhere mentions the Caksusiya. Moreover, while the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya or Canakya or Viṣṇugupta is expressly named or quoted or referred to by numerous writers and works from at least the 3rd century A. I)., such as the Tantrākhyāyikī, the Kāmasūtra, Kima ndakiyanitisāra, the Pañcatantra, Būna, Dandin, the Mudra rākṣasa, hardly any writer or work of the centuries from the 3rd to the 8th has been shown to have mentioned the Cākṣusiya. Some verges are quoted from the Cūksusīya Artha śrstra in an anthology called Sūktiratnakara ( vide J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XI. pp. 81-84). Mr. Ramkrishna Kavi (in J. V. 0. I. Vol. IV. p. 123 ) says that thirteen verses are quoted from Cāksusiya in Sūktiratnākara, of which only eight are found in the mss. used by him.

This short primer for beginners in Arthaśāstra quotes a verse, a prose passage and sometimes several verses on most of the stras (except on sūtras 36, 38, 43, 45, 51, 52, 55-64). The verses are often preceded by such words as ‘atra slokāh’, thereby intimating that they are quotations from some other work or works, for example, on II. 2 it quotes nine versek which either closely agree with Mann or state the same ideas in similar words viz. Manu IX. 303-11; on II. 3 it TEK ‘atra slokāḥ,’ which closely agree with the extant Manu V!! 50-51. On II, 21 the Cākṣußīya sets out A prose passagerantlind

1, D.–20

FOON PED

OLE

Bhandarkar Oriental Aesearch Institute

154

History of Dhurmuścistruo

then a verse which is the same as Manu, ( VIII. 26 ‘ākārair ingitair-gatyā … … … manaḥ’). On II. 4 it quotes four verses, one of which has the half verse ‘yadenam kṣamayā yuktam–asaktam manyate janah’ (which is Udyoga parva 33. 48 and Santi. 160. 34 ). It is remarkable that at the end of the 2nd patala (on sūtra 24 ) it has a verse in Sragdhara metre. Mr. Kavi states that only one verse in the Cāksusiya (IV. 64, that has nine verses in it ) occurs in Manu (VII. 105 ) but, as shown above, the Cāksusiya quotes (on II. 21 ) Manu VIII. 26 and adapts several other verses of the Manu smrti with slight changes.

The publication of the Arthaīñstra of Kautilya was a great event and this work will have an abiding interest and value for all time. Dr. Jolly in his Introduction to his edition of the work described it as ‘perhaps the most precious work in the whole range of Sanskrit Literature’ (p. 1).

It was first published in 1909 by Dr. R. Shama Sastri in the Mysore Sanskrit Series. In 1915 he published an English translation of the whole with an Introductory note by Dr. J. F. Fleet and a Preface dealing with its authenticity and age. Revised editions of the text were published by him in 1919 and 1924 and his son published an edition of the text and translation in 1951. Another edition (in two parts ) by Dr. Jolly and Dr. R. Schmidt was published in 1923 by Messrs Motilal Banarasidas of Lahore with an English Intro duction of 47 pages and (Vol. II) with notes and a Sanskrit commentary called Nayacandrika by Madhavayajvan on a large part of the text (i. e. from adhikarana VII to XII). M. M. T. Ganapati Sastri published the Arthaśāstra with his own commentary called Srimūla in 1924 in three parts. Recently Prof. R. P. Kangle edited the text prepared from all the available mss. material and the University of Bombay published it as the first volume of the text with a glossary (in 1960) and a second volume with an English translation and explanatory notes was published in 1963 and a third volume containing a study of the Arthaśnstra will soon follow. In this revised edition of the first volume of the H. of Dh. Prof. R. P. Kangle’s edition of the text published in 1960 has been used.

No complete commentary on the Arthasāstra of Kautilya has yet been discovered. The commentaries so far discovered ere fragmentary. They are as follows: (1) The Com. called

T

1.. Thc Arthusāstru of Kurtibyua

185

Pratipadapancikā of Bhatta-svāmin on the 2nd Aubikarana from the 8th Aidhyāya to the 36th Adhyāya published in J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XI and XII, in all 214 pages. (2) The Nayacandrikā of Madhava–yajvan published in Dr. Jolly’s edition of the Arthasāstra (19233 ), with an Introduction (pp. 1-47) in English ; it begins in chapter 7th of the seventh adhikarana ( on sādgunya ) and breaks off in the 4th adlyayu of the 12th allhikurie nuo ; (3) The com. Jayamangalā is avai lable only from the beginning (1st Adhikarana ) to end of Chap. 13. 1, a small part of which was published by Shri G. Harihara-Sastri in J. 0. R. (Mad. ) Vol. XXII. pp. 29-44 on chapters 9-14 of the first Albikarana. The author is pro bably the same as the anthor of the Jayamangalā on the Kāmasutra. ( 4 ) Nitinirriti of Youthama ; a small fragment discovered along with i naguri ms. of the text, by Muni Jina vijayaji at Patan, concerned with II, 1, 1 to II. 3 and opening of II. 4 and published by him in the Singhi Jain–granthamālt series (Bombay, 1959 ); 150F ( 5 ) Bhāni-vyākhyāna in Maluya lam. The commentary extends up to the 7th adhikurana only. The com, on the first two adhikaranay was edited and published in 1930 (1st adhikarana) and in 1938 (on zod adhikarana ) by Sambusiva Sastri and the com. ou the 3rd adhikarana was edited and published in 1945 by V. A. Rama swami Sastri, all at Trivandrum. The Com. ou udhikaranas 4-7 was edited by Shri K. N. Ezhuthachau and published by the University of Madras in 1960; (6) Cānak yaṭikā by Bhikyu Prabhamati, a fracınent, being edited by Mr. G. Huribara Sastri and published in the volumes of the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, upto pp. 1-188; (7) Commentary called Sriinūla on the whole of the Kuuṭiliya by M. M. Ganapati Sastri, in which he utilizes the material afl’orded by all the commentaries available to him.

The first commentary, if it dealt with the whole of the Arthasāstra, must have been very extensive, since the availa ble com. on a portion of the 2nd Adhikarana alone covers 214

INST

OHA

I!

150€ A. II. 1, 3 about how a village is to be settlod providos it should

mostly have sūdra agriculturists, with a minimum of one hundre! Kulas and a maximum of fivo hundred Kulas ; Yogglama quotesna vorse ‘चुल्याधाने कुलं विद्यादित्याम्भीयाः प्रचक्षते । दम्पत्यं कुलमित्येक हले catalogarea II!

1917

156

History of Dharnuciscāstru

printed pages. That commentary quotes explanations of previ ous commentators in the words ‘anye’ and ‘apare’and quotes several slokas of Brhaspati on the blemishes of diamonds and on ‘prakāśa-taskaras.’ The Nayacandrikā also refers to the views of predecessors ( vide pp. 35. 61, 62, 104, 115, 137, 191 ) and discusses various l’eadings also (vide pp. 136, 183, 188, 193 &c). Yogyhana’s com. (at least of about the 12th century A. D.; cites the views of Ambhiyas in a verse on p. 2.

Besides the English trauslations of the Arthaśāstra by Dr. Shama Shastri and Prof. Kangle, there is J. J. Meyer’s German translation Das Altindische Buch von welt-und staatsleken das Arthaśāstra des Kautilya’( Leipzig, 1925-26 ) and there is a Russian translation edited by Prof. V. I, Kalya. nov (Leningrad, 1959). The Arthaśāstra has been translated into Hindi by several authors and there are translations in Bengali, Gujarati, the four south Indian languages and in Marathi (this last by Messrs. J. S. Karandikar and B. R. Hivargaonkar, 1927–29 ).

This work bas given rise to frequent and furious coutro versies about its authorship, its authenticity and its age and it cannot be said that we have heard the last of this din of controversy. Moreover, this work has inspired, besides nume. rous articles in journals, several monographs, some of which have somewhat high sounding titles, such as Narendranath Law’s Studies in Ancient Indiau Polity,’ Dr. P. Banerji’s

Public Administration in Ancient India,’ Ghosal’s History of Hindu Political Theories, ’ Majumdar’s Corporate Life in Ancient India,’ Benoy Kumar Sarkar’s’ Political Iostitutions and Theories of the Hindus,’ Jayasval’s ‘Hindu Polity,’ Prof. S. V. Viśvanathan’s International Law in Ancient India’ (1925). It is not possible to discuss at great length all the problems about Kautilya here. Only a brief statement can be attempted. For fuller study reference may be made to the following works and papers :- Hillebrandt’s ‘ūber das Kauti lyaśāstra und Verwandtes’ (Breslau 1908 ), Z D M G. vol. 67, pp. 49–96 (Dr. Jolly ), Z DMG vol. 68, pp. 345-359 and vol. 69, p. 369 ff’; JR AS 1910, pp. 130-137 (Prof. Keith I. A. for 1918, pp. 157-161 and pp. 187-195 ( Dr. Jugobi translated by Dr. Sukthankar); Dr. Kalidas Nag’s Web Théories Diplomatiques de l’Inde ancienne et l’Arthasasthouse

1.1. The Arthuśūstic of Kautilya

157

( Paris 1923 ) and its translation in ‘Journal of Indian His. tory’ vol. V ; Dr. Otto Stein’s ‘Megasthenes und Kautilya’ ( Vienna 1922 ), K. V. Rangasvami Ayyangar’s lectures on Ancient Indian Polity ( Madras 1916), Dr. Winternitz in Cal cutta Review 1924 and in his history of Indian Literature (vol. III, 1D. 509-524 ), I. A. for 1924, pp. 128-136 and 141 146 ( Dr. Jacobi translated by Prof. Utgikar ); Dr. Johann J. Meyer’s Das altindische Buch vom Welt-und Staatsleben das Arthaśāstra des Kautilya’ ( Leipzig, 1925) and Prof. N. C. Bandopadhyaya’s exposition of the social ideal and political theory of Kautilya. The Indian Antiquary for 1925 ( pp. 175 und 201 ) gives an exhaustive bibliography on the date of Kantilya.

While the author was engaged in collecting materials and after the 1st volume of the H. of D. was published in 1930 a very large number of studies of the Kuuṭiliya and numerous articles ou various matters connected with the Kauṭiliya have been published. The present author has to confess that he has not read a good many of them. A short list of some of those studies and articles that he has lead or consulted is set out here:

Among studies may be mentioned the following :-Kauta liya Studien ‘by B. Breloer, three volumes (1927–1934) (in German); D. R. Bhandarkar’s ‘Some aspects of ancient Hindu Polity’( Benares 1929 ); Prof. Radhakumnd Mookerji’s ‘Chan dragupta Maurya and his times’ (Madras, 1943 ); “Kautalya Studies’ by Sten Konow (Oslo, 1945 ); Prof. K. V. Ranga swami Aiyangar’s ‘Indian Cameralism’ (Madras 1949);’ Age of Imperial Unity’hy Dr. R. C. Majumdar Bombay, 1951);

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas’ ed. by Prof. K. A. Nila kanta Sastri (Benares 1952, particularly pp. 132–169 and Pp. 190-201); ‘L. Inde Classique’ by Professors Renou and Filli ozat, Tome II ( Paris, 1953); “The Wonder that was India’ by Prof. A. L Basham (London 1954); ‘State and Govern. ment in Ancient India ’ by Dr. A. S. Altekar ( Benares, 1955); ’ A History of Indian Political Ideas’ by Prof. U. N. Ghoshal (3rd ed. Bombay, 1959); Studies in Kautilya’ by M. V. Krishnarao (2nd ed. 1958);. Studies in Hindu Political thous ght and its metaphysical foundations’ by V. P. Varalan ( Benares ).

Among articles and papers may be mentioned the follo wing; ‘On the authenticity of the Kautiliya’ in I. A. vol 47

168

History of Dhurmuścstra

(1918) pp. 157-161 and 187–195 (Jacobi’s remarks translated by Dr. Sukthankar ), I. A. Vol. 53 pp. 128-136 ( tr. by Prof. Utgikar); Date of Kautilya’ by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (ABORI Vol. VII pp. 65-84; “The Latest work on Kauṭi lya’s Arthuśāstra ‘by Prof. Edgerton (JAOS 1928, pp. 289 322, a review of Meyer’s tr.); ‘Two Studies in the Arthasi. stra of Kautilya’ by E. H. Johnston (in JRAS for 1929 pp. 77-102 ); The date of K. A. by Dr. Prannath ( I. A. Vol. 60 pp. 109-112 and 121-23 (puts it between 484-510, A. D.); Geography of Kautilya’ by H. V. Trivedi (“Indian Culture’, Vol. I pp. 247-261 ); * Place of the Arthaśāstra in the Litera ture of Indian Polity’ by Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri ( ABO RI, Vol. 28, 1947, pp. 34-95); ‘Kuuṭiliyan State, a welfare State’ by Dr. B. P. Sinha, JBORS Vol. 40, pp. 178-194 and

the king in the Kauṭilian State ’ by the same author in game journal pp. 277-308; India Antiqua (studies presented to Dr. J. P. Vogel ) pp. 136 -145; Prof. U. N. Ghoshal on System of interstate relations and foreign policy in the early Artha śāstra State ); Kingship and community’ in ‘Early India’ by Charles Drekmeier ( Oxford University Press, Bombay 1962, particularly chapters 11-13 pr. 189-244 ).

The Kautiliya is the oldest extuut work on Arthusastra. Though Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśāstra are often contradisti nguished on accouut of the difference of the two śāstras in ideals and in the methods adopted to reach them, Arthashstra is really a branch of Dharmaśāstra as the former deals with the responsibilities of kings for whom rules are laid down in many treatises on dlocrna. 181 For this reason and the fur ther reason that the Kauṭiliya contains two sections (called dharmasthiya and kantakasodhana ) on the administration of justice, the Arthaśāstra of Kautilyu deserves careful conside ration in this work. According to the Caranavyuha of Sau naka, Arthaśāstra is an Upaveda of Atharvaveda. The pur pose of this Śāstra as stated in the Kauṭiliya itself is ’to pre scribe means for securing and preserving (power over ) the earth. ‘152 Yājñavalkya distinctly states (II. 21) that in 151 TETTE FONÀT Tratfattat fatia iti Parapente fino on

Yāj. II. 21. 152 CENT: gfèragi na96aitara: TIHTarafa ii. 16. 1. 2. So also in

very first sentence is ‘gferon al qrant a referenduma चार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्यैकमिदमर्थशास्त्रं कृतम् ।’

s1

FOUNDEO

1917

14. The Arthuśtīstru of Kautilya,

159

case of conflict between Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra, the rule is that the former prevails. 153 Nārada also ( I. 39 ) says the same thing 154

That there was in India a great deal of thinking on roli tics, economics, law and administration of justice several cen turies before Christ is clear from the Mahābhārata and the early Dharmasūtras like those of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Apastamba. In the Sāntiparva the word Nitiśāstra is frequ ently used in the sense of political science. For example, Sānti 138. 196 states that ‘avisvāsa’ (not putting trust in anybody) is briefly the essence of all Nitiśīstras.1548 Vide also Sānti 111. 73, 138. 39 and 43. It has already been shown that the Santiparva names several expounders of Nitiśāstra. Brhaspatimata is frequently quoted in the great Epic on poli tics and connected matters. Bphaspati is said to be the son of Angiras ( Adiparva 76. 19). The Sabhāparva ( 55. 6) men tions as the opinion of Brhaspati that the conduct or life of kings is different from the (rules of conduct of common men.1646 The Udyoga Parva states that Bphaspati declared that one should give battle to an (enemical) army which is smaller by one-third than one’s own army.1640 Bhisina parva quotes the dictum of Brhaspati that one who has a sinall army should present a compact front, while one who has a large army should spread it out1649 and then a reference is made to a ‘vyūha’ called Vajra (19. 7). The same parva speaks of a vyuha called Krauñcīruna (in 50. 40 ) which was suggested to Indra by Brhaspati; a vyūha called Kraunca is mentioned in Drona-parvan (7.25). It is noteworthy that Kautilya deals with vyvhus in X. O and in the first sūtra refers to the arrangement of a vyūha according to Uśanas and

153 STORITEIT & Trefna ferra: 1 154 यत्र विप्रतिपत्तिः स्याद्धर्मशास्त्रार्थशास्त्रयोः । अर्थशास्त्रोक्तमुत्सृज्य धर्मशास्त्रोक्त.

APRE II 1541 Hemat afaramaFAPITA: PTO #2: 1 em 1 34. 95 ; fadht

pamut pā 979zad i ha 85. 34. 134) TTTTTTTTTTARIETE grā: 1 fatia. 154c as flugurat HEM aeria: 1 391M. 55. 66. 1st महर्वचनात्तात वेदयन्ति बृहस्पतेः। संहतान्योधयेदल्पान् कामं विस्तारयेद्बहून ।।

1194 19.5; the latter half occurs in Manu VII. 191,

HST!

POG

FOUN

160

acc. to Bșhaspati. It is remarkable that the Vajra array referred to above is mentioned in K. X. 6. 35, that a syena array is mentioned by Kautilya (X. 6. 12), though not Krauñca and that an array called Sakata is mentioned in the Dronaparva 7. 24, which occurs in Kauṭiliya also (at X. 6. 26 ).

Sānti ( 69. 23-24 ) states that Bilaspati advises a wise king desirous of securing his kingdom to avoid war and to accomplish his object by the three upayas, appeasement, offer of gift, or bheila ( sowing discord ) and to be satisfied with what he would be able to secure by the first three. 154€ Santiparvan ( 59. 59 ) states that, according to the Acāryas, the vices ( vyorsunas) of kings are ten in all, either due to Kopa (anger ) or to kām ( lust ).14f The first category consists of six vices, viz. vākpārusya (harshness of speech ), danda pārusya (harshness due to physical punishment ), arthadisana (violation of property ) and three others; the vices due to lust are four, vix, hunting, gambling, women and drinking. The Manusmrti (in VII. 47-8 ) speaks of ten vices due to lust and eight vices due to anger. The Kautiliya (VIII. 3 ) reduces the vices lue to lust to four and the vices due to anger to three only and holds a long discussion abont the comparative harm caused by these. The word Kantaka sodhana (suppression of criminals ) occurs in Sānti 59. 5:3. According to the view of Bihaspati, obtaining of wealth is secured in four ways viz. that due to parumpaerya (inheri tance from ancestors ), that dne to good fortune, that due to one’s ardent desire to acquire and that derived from a

1540 वर्जनीयं सदा युद्धं राज्यकामेन धीमता । उपायैखिभिरादानमर्थस्याह

बृहस्पतिः ॥ सान्त्वेन तु प्रदानेन भेदेन च नराधिप । यदर्थं ( यमर्थ ? )

ETICITÀ Ga goa afisa: Il fa. 69. 23-24. न त्वयेदं श्रुतं राजन् यजगाद बृहस्पतिः । … सर्वोपायैर्निहन्तव्याः शत्रवः

7 7A AHT. 74. 7-8. 154f क्रोधजानि तथोग्राणि कामजानि तथैव च । दशोक्तानि कुरुश्रेष्ठ व्यसनान्यत्र

चैव ह ॥ मृगयाक्षास्तथा पानं स्त्रियश्च भरतर्षभ । कामजान्याहुराचार्या। प्रोक्तानीह खयंभुवा ॥ वाक्पारुष्यं तथोप्रत्वं दण्डपारुष्यमेव च । आत्मनो fauetari gena 7 ll T-7. 59. 59-61. Ville Aurita also for the four vicey due to lust; while Monu ( VII. 47 ) sperado

group of vices due to lust but in vorso 50 rolors to the abovolour Ag the most harmful,

MOORE

FOUNDED

1917

1.4. The Arthuścīstra of Kautilya

161

friend. 154g In Sablñparva ( 74. 7-8) Duryodhana tells his father that acc. to Bșhaspati enemies should be killed by employing all kinds of means.

In the Vanaparva (32. 61 ) Draupadi says that her brothers were taught the Nīti of Brhaspati and in Vana. 150. 29 it is stated that men are supported by (or held to the right path ) by rules promulgated by Brhaspati154h and Uśanas. In the Karna parva it is said that a certain Vyūha ( array of army) was arranged according to the opinion of Bphaspati and Uśanas ( 31. 12-13). Vide Karnaparva 46. 27 for Bārhaspatya Vycha. Salyaparva states that, acc. to Bṛhaspati’s view, a king who is weak should desire to make peace (with a stronger one) or with his equal, while one who is growing in strength should desire conflict.254; Santi ( 23. 15 ) quotes a gathā of Brhaspati and in 56. 39 quotes & verse from Bārhasptyaśāstra (both quoted in the note ) to the effect that low people may disrespect a king who is always forbearing, just as the rider of an elephant desires to sit on the head of it. 154; In Santiparva a verse is quoted from Brhaspati’s work as recited by Marutta in the section on kings viz. ’that punishment should follow even in the case of a guru who has become conceited, who fails to disting uish between what is proper to be done or is improper and takes to a bad course of conduct ’.154* Sānti ( 122. 11 ) speaks

154g चतुर्विधा ह्यर्थसिद्धिबृहस्पतिमतं यथा । पारम्पर्य तथा दैवं काम्यं मैत्रमिति

all tifa 170. 12. 154h Pangera sarfūm 91971: 19749 150. 29. 154i tentaa & Aft: fect: ha a fet a HTA HITRAT QEFca:

stappe 4. 43; compare spefatter REISTARA: Harvia 3p.

zafferat fagrara i VII. 1. 13-14. 154j fait fairerat af fatiffa I TATA after STENU 77

fantaa ll Ifa 23. 15; HATI TQ fast fra: Rua 1: 1

OPERTURAT START Fora galegara lll f. 56. 39. 154k ponta fe stia: th: geraa: i TTTIITATT TT Grora

मते पुरा ॥ गुरोरप्यवलिपस्य कार्याकार्यमजानतः । उत्पथप्रतिपक्षस्य दण, Hafa TT&TT: il stifea. 67. 6-7. This verse occurs several timely the Epic, viz, in Udyogaparva 178. 47-48, Ādiparva 140. 54 and to Sāoti ( 140. 48 ). The last parla in some of those presents different rondings.

13.3162

of a king as having studied the whole of Bphaspatimata and Auśanasaśāstra. Sānti 59. 51 refers to ‘Saptāngarājya’; Manu IX. 294 and Kautilya ( VI. 1. 1 ) also mention the seven constituent elements.

Sāntiparva states that Brhaspati prescribed Utthāna ( effort, endeavour ) for kings and as the basis of rājadharma and recites verses thereon.1547 Kautilya also says that a king should bring about the acquisition of what is not gained (Yoga) and protection of what is obtained by effort (Uttha nena Yogaksemasādhanam, J. 7.1 ). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 914-15, Vol. II pp. 588–589, Vol. V. pp. 1385-6 for a dis. cussion of the meaning of yogaksema.

The passages quoted above from different parvans of the Mahābhārata (not only from Sāntiparva ) show that the author of the Mahabharata had before him a treatise of Bșhaspati on Arthaśāstra, that it was extensive, contained verses and that it was divided into parts or chapters called ’ Adhikāra ’ like ‘adhikarana’ in Kautilya.

It may be noted that Aśvaghosa in his Buddhacarita ( I. 46 ) mentions the Rājaśāstras produced by Sukra, son of Bhrgu and Brhaspati, son of Aigiras.154m Kalidasa in Kumārasambhava ( III. 6 ) mentions the Niti of Usanas.

Brhaspati’s Artha Sastrn appears to have contained a legendary beginning that what Bphaspati, the preceptor of the Gods, taught Inilra is contained in the treatise of Bșhaspati.

1541 उत्थानं हि नरेन्द्राणां बृहस्पतिरभाषत । राजधर्मस्य तन्मूलं श्लोकाश्चात्र

निबोध मे ॥ उत्थाननामृतं लब्धमुत्थानेनासुरा हताः ॥ उत्थानेन महेन्द्रेण श्रेष्टयं प्राप्तं दिवीह च । उत्थानवीरः पुरुषो वाग्वीरानधितिष्ठति । उत्थानवीरान्वाग्वारा रमयन्त उपासते ॥ उत्थानहीनो राजा हि बुद्धिमानपि नित्यशः । प्रधर्षणीयः शत्रूणां भुजङ्गः इव निर्विषः । शान्ति 58. 18-18; compare कौटिल्य ‘राजानमु. स्थितमनत्तिष्टन्ते मृत्याः । प्रमाद्यन्तमनु प्रमाद्यन्ति । कर्माणि चास्य भक्षयन्ति । द्विषद्भिश्चातिसन्धीयते। तम्मादुत्थानमात्मनः कुर्वीत। … राज्ञो हि व्रतमुस्थानं यज्ञः कार्यानुशासनम् । दक्षिणा वृत्तिसाम्यं तु दीक्षा तस्याभिषेचनम् ॥ तस्मानि त्योस्थितो राजा कुर्यादानुशासनम् । अर्थस्य मूलमुत्थानमनर्थस्य

विपर्ययः ॥ अर्थशास्त्र I. 19. 1-5 and 33-35. 154m यद्राजशास्त्रं भृगुरङ्गिरा वा न चक्रतुर्वंशकरावृषी तौ। तयोः सुतौ तो

ससर्जतुस्तत्कालेन शुक्रश्च बृहस्पतिश्च ॥ बुद्धचरित I. 46. ससर्जतु: Homlila literally mean crentod ( or proluced )

16. The Arthuośāstru of Kuutilya

163

The present Manusmrti contains a similar assertion that Brahmā taught Mapu and the latter taught it to Marici, Bhrgu and others ( Manu I. 35-36 and 58 ) and Bhigu at the order of Manu transmitted the Sāstra to the sages ( I. 60 and 119 ). Such fabulous accounts were introduced in ancient works to heighten the authority of the teaching. The Birhas patyas mentioned in the Arthasāstra were probably those who relied on the treatise of Brhaspati, and Kautilya differed from their teaching in I. 2. 4-5, V. 15. 48 (they required that 16 persons constituted a council of Ministers ), II. 7. 13 ( those superintendents who caused loss of revenue should be fined ten times the loss ), in III. 11. 40 (punishment for witnesses who lead to a wrong judgment), III. 17. 13 (on fine for him who instigated another to commit an oflence ).

Usaṇas is another ancient sage who appears to have composed a treatise on Arthasastra. That Kāvya Usauas was ā sage of hoary antiquity even in Rgvedic times would be indicated below (under Uśanas). Several passages from Uśanas mentioned in the great Epic would be cited there. The Asramavāsikaparva states that the Vyūhas called Sakata, Padma and Vajra have been declared in the Sāstra of Usanas. 154n The Vyūha called Sakata is mentioned in the Arthasāstra X. 6. 26 and Vajra in X. 6. 35. The Manusmrti in VII. 187 mentions six Vyūlas viz. Dandu, Sakaṭa, Varāha, Makara, Suci, Garuḍa, and in VII. 188 mentious Padmavyuha and Vajra in VII. 191.

It is clear that the author of the Mahabharata had before him a treatise by Usanas on Rājaniti, which went into such details as the names of certain Vyūhas. Manu (VII. 146 and 151 ) provides that the king should hold in a secret place a meeting of the councillors and sets out the subjects on which the king has to hold counsel with thein (mantrins ) and one verse (VII. 154 )1640 refers to the eightfold actions of the king 1540 372119979T THË 957 (751 ) HRT I 3771 OF TESTET

marafered mait ll 35#TRO 7. 15. 1540 HT VII. 154 is : carte rarau Ho t 27 07977: 1 341

a ta’ HUESIT E ll; und out quotes two verses of JPTATE : 3765 विधं कर्म उशनसोक्तं यथा। आदाने च विसर्गे च तथा प्रैषनिषेधयोः। पर्म चार्थवचने व्यवहारस्य चेक्षण। दण्डशुद्धौ तथा युक्त आत्मशुद्धौ तथैव चार अष्टकर्मा दिवं याति राजा शक्राभिपूजितः ॥ कल्पतरु ( on राजधर्म p. 108; those two aro quoted by Modlālithi also ou Manu VII. 158nand

13

164

llistory of Dharmaśāstra

and the group of five kinds of spies and Kalpataru (on Rāja. dharma p. 108 ) quotes two verses of Uśanas in which the eight are enumerated. Ausunasi-nīti is mentioned in the Mudrārāksasa just before I. 15.

For Bhāra vāja vide below. Not only in the Maha bhārata but also in the Rāmāyana there is a good deal of the principles and phraseology of Arthaśāstra. There is a chapter called Kaccit-praśna in the Rāmāyana ( Ayodhyākānda 100) just as there is one in Sabhāparva (chap. 5). We have

adevamātṛko deśaḥ’ (Rām. Ayodhya 100. 25 4s in Kauti līya V. 2. 2 and VI, 1. 8). The same story of king Nrga, who donated & Brāhmana’s cow by mistake and became a chome leon because he did not speedily deal with the dispute, is nar rated in Anusāsana parva 6. 38 und Asramedbika-parva 90. 99-100 and in the Rāmāyana, Uttarakānda, chap. 53. 6-26. Not only in the epics, but in some of the Purāṇas also Rājadharma is treated at some length. For example, the Matsya Purana devotes severel chapters (225-229 ) to Rājadharma that deal with the suhāyas of the king, the conduct of the king’s servants, fortress and its equipments. Fate and human effort, the Upāyas, sāma, dāna, bheda, danda ; time for invasion etc.

From very early times, Viṣṇugupta alias Canakya or Kauṭilya has been credited with the composition of a work on Arthasāstra. The Kamandakiya-viti-sāra285 pays a glowing tribute of praise to Viṣṇugupta, who single-handed brought about the downfall of the Nandas and bestowed the earth on Candragupta by the force of his political strategy and who distilled from the ocean of Arthaśāstra the quintessence of (his work on ) Nītiśāstra. Kāmandaka tells us further that he looked upon Viṣṇugupta as Guru.158 The Tantrākhyā.

155 यस्याभिचारवज्रेण वज्रज्वलनतेजसः । पपात मूलतः श्रीमान् सुपर्वा नन्द

पर्वतः ॥ एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या यः शक्त्या शक्तिधरोपमः । आजहार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुप्ताय मेदिनीम् ॥ नीतिशास्त्रामृतं धीमानर्थशास्त्रमहोदधेः । समुद्

दधे नमस्तस्मै विष्णुगुप्ताय वेधसे । काम. I. 4-6. 156 PETITE gaar sat i gatay1 FAO 11, 6; compare 3PAIKKA

NS

POONA

FOUNDED

FOUNDER

14. The Arthasustack of Kautilya

165

yikā ( the earliest version of the Pañcatantra ), which, accord ing to Hertel ( H.O.S.), is not later than 300 A. D., pays its homage to167 Cānakya the great, as one of the authors of the treatises on Rājaśāstra along with Manu, Bșhaspati, Sukra, Parāśara and his son. Dandin in his Dasakumāracarita in several places and particularly in section VIII (ed. of B. S. S. 1891 ) furnishes very important evidence of the names of the author of the Arthuśāstra and actually quotes several passa ges. Only a few are mentioned (in the note ).188 “There are four lores for the King and then says ‘Dandanīti was sum marised in 6000 Sloka units by the Ācārya Viṣṇugupta for the benefit of the Maurya king’. Then it refers to the ‘forty ways of embezzlement indicated by Cinakya’ (i. e. Artha Sastra II. 8. 20-21 ). It is clear from the Dasakumāra carita that Dandin regarded Viṣṇugupta as the author of the Arthasāstra and identified him with Cāṇakya.

.

.

.

…-…– . … … … . ….. … …………. ………..

.

.

157 मनवे वाचस्पतये शुक्राय पराशराय ससुताय । चाणक्याय च महते

नमोस्तु नृपशासकर्तृभ्यः ॥ verse 2 of तन्त्राख्यायिका. 168 Important quotations from दशकुमारचरित ( pp. 258 if. of the Nir.

od. of 1951 ) are : (1) ननु चतस्रो राजविद्यालयी वार्तान्वीक्षिकी दण्डनीति रिति । … अधीच तावद्दण्डनीतिम् । इयमिदानीमाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन मौर्यार्थे षड्राभः श्लोकसहनैः संक्षिमा।. Vide अर्थशास्त्र I. 1. 18 षश्लोकसहना णीति । ; (2) चत्वारिंशच्चाणक्योपदिष्टानाहरणोपायान्० ; vide A. II. 8. 20-21; (3) सत्यमाह चाणक्यः । चित्तज्ञानानुवर्तिनोऽनर्था (ा) अपि प्रियाः स्युः । दक्षिणा अपि तद्भावबहिष्कृता द्वेष्या भवेयुरिति । ride A. V. 4, verses 13-14. ( one half of each ); (4) राज्यं नाम शक्तित्रयायत्तम् । शक्तयश्च मन्त्रप्रभावोत्साहाः परस्परानुगृहीताः कृत्येषु क्रमन्ते । … अतः पञ्चाङ्ग मन्त्रमूलो … दिसप्ततिप्रकृतिपत्रः षड्गुणकिसलयः । otc.; vide अर्थ. VL 2. 33 (शक्तयः), VI. 2. 28 (द्विसप्ततिः); VII. 1. 2 (षागण्य); (5) भूयो भूयश्वोपधाभिर्विशोध्य … मतिसहायमकरवम् । ( vide अर्थशास्त्र I. 10. 1-4); (Gon p. 54 ) येऽपि मन्त्रकर्कशाः शास्त्रतन्त्रकाराः शुक्राङ्गिरस विशालाक्ष-बाहुदन्तिपुत्र-पराशरप्रभृतयस्तैः किमरिषड्वर्गो जितः कृतं वातः शास्त्रानुष्ठानम् . शुक्र and आङ्गिरस are respectively उशनस् and बृहस्पति.

Fou hd

These are among the individual procloconsors montionod in Arthatantra.

166

History of Dhurmuścīstra

Let us now turn to the Mudrārāksasa,159 from which a few passages are quoted below. It refers to Kautilya as ‘Kutila muti’ (of crooked intellect) in 1. 7 .Kautilyaḥ Kutilamatih su esa yena krodhāynan prasabham-adāhi Nandavamsah’, and again in Act IV. 2 there is a reference to the crooked intellect of Kautilya (api ca kuṭilim Kautilyasya prucintayato matim ). Again, in Cānakya’s speech in Mudrārā kṣasa before 1. 22 anyac-ca-Nandam-iva Viṣṇuguptah &c.’ it is clearly showu that Viṣṇugupta and Canakya ure identical, according to the author of the Mudrārāksasa. Malayaketu boasts (V. 22)

I am able to uproot Vinnugupta and Maurya even if they come ( together ) with you ( Rāksasa )’. Here the author clearly shows that Viṣṇugupta is identical with Cāṇakya and Kautilya. There is a striking passage towards the end of the play after VII. 9, where Cāŋakya addresses Raksasa (whom the former has won over to the side of Candragupta ) I, Viṣṇugupta, otter salutatiou to you’ (Viṣṇuguptoham abhivādaye ) and Raksasa responds by saying ‘Bho Virṇu. gupta’ when a little before (i. e. before VII. 6) Rāksasa had said (nivedyatam duritmaue Cānakyāya.’ These passages establish beyond doubt that, according to Visakhadatta, Kau ṭilya, Cāṇakya and Viṣṇugupta were the names of the same persou and, from the way in which abhivadunc was perfor med, it appears that the dramatist believed that Viṣṇugupta was the original name given at the time of Nāmakarana. Manu (II. 121 ) prescribes that a brālimana making abhiva dana to a person older (than himself) should pronounce his own name with the words ‘here do I bow, so and so by name’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II, pp. 330-337 for discussion on abhivādana.

160 TUFFT:- Tame TT&TT I Try Haa: 1 augitaratutninga: 7781

चाणक्यतश्चलितभक्तिमहं सुखेन जेन्यामि मौर्यमिति संप्रति यः प्रयुक्तः । Act. III p. 30 ; la carta a Alā q qaberrat 71 l gatesfarghit TË Badifta gata: Il HAT. V. 23 ; 31 BARATTATA Pargatehpare i मुद्रारा. after VII. 9 and राक्षस says ‘भो विष्णुगुप्त प्रबोस्मि’ after VII. 16. In I. H. Q. vol. 28 for 1953. pp. 265-72 Vr, K.C. Ojla holds that Viṣṇugupta is a later fabrication and that he compiled the Artha. Sistra after the 6th or 7th century or a couple of centuries earlier, It is unnecessary to deal with his arguments, which are mga subjective and he has not carefully consilored all the factions inblad horo.

ACT

14. Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

167

There was a great divergence of views about the time when a child was given a name. Vide I. H. Q. (1938) Vol. 14 pp. 24 44 (the author’s paper on giving a name to a child ) and H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 238 ft. Several authorities prescribed that Nāmakarana should primarily be performed on the 10th or 12th day after birth ( Baud. Gr. II. 1. 23, Pār. Gr. I. 17 and Manu 11. 30). There were various rules at different times about what name should be given. One of the rules was that the name may be derived from that of a sage or of a deity or may be the same as the name of an ancestor (Baud. Gr. II. 1. 28-29 and Mānavagrhya I. 18). The name Viṣṇugupta would* be in accordance with these rules, but not Canakya necessari ly. Kautilya would only be a gotra name or a nickname. The wame Canakya may have been due to the place whence the author’s family came or where he was born, just as Pānini is called Salāturiya from Salūtura occurring in Pā. IV. 3. 93 ). In the Parisistaparva of Hemacandra (ed. by Jacobi, Calcutta 1883 ) on p. 55 of the Introduction it is stated that Canaka was a village in Colla District and Canakya was born of a Brāhmana called Canin who resided there. Verse VIII. 339 states that Candragnpta became king 155 years after Mahāvīra passed away. His paternal grandfather or some more remote ancestor might have borne the name Canaka and so he was called Canakya (according to ‘Gaigñdibhyo yan’ (Pān. IV. 1. 105 ), Canaka being one of the numerous words under Gargādi-yana.’ We have Cārāyana and Katyāyana (in Artha. V. 5. 11), Cara being included in the Nadadi-gana ( Pāin. IV. I. 99) as the 2nd word. Vide the Nidhanapur plates of Bhaskara-varman (of Kamarūpa) in E. I. Vol. 19 pp. 115-117 and pp. 248-250, where two hundred and five donees are named together with their gotras (about 25), among which are Kātyāyana, Kautilya (four donees of that gotra), Gautama, Jātū karna &. Vide J. I. H. Vol. XXXI. pp. 111-119 where several views are mentioned about the date of the Nidhanpur plates, S. Bhattacarya assigning them to about 647 A, D). The Ilarsacarita (VII) inentions several ancestors of Bhaskaravarmun, who, according to the Harta carita, was a contemporary of Emperor Harna. There is no

STITUT

Keith on p. 489 of his paper in B. C. Low Folicitation T makes the extraordinary suggestion that ’ Anothor naine of in Vinnugıpta which was altered by Kautilya after his destrucidit of the line of Naoda, acc, to the Mudrārāksasa,

FOUNDEE

168

doubt that, whatever the exact date of the Nidhanpur grant may be, Bhāskara varman flourished in the first half of the 7th century.

Dandin flourished not later than 700 A. D.; vide the author’s History of Sanskrit Poetics ( ed. of 1961 ) pp. 119-120 and the discussion that precedes. The date of Mudrārākṣasa is rather debatable. It depends upon what is the correct rea ding of the last pāda in the Bharatavākya.100 The Bharata. vākya in the Mudrārākṣaśa is put in the mouth of Raksasa in some mss. and in that of Canakya in others. The word * Bharatavākya’ literally means the speech of the Bharata or of Bharatas’ (‘Bharatā ityapi naṭāḥ’ says Amarakośa ). The Nātyaśāstra does not define the word. Therefore, we have to rely upon the practice of early and great Sanskrit dramatists to find what the word exactly implies. In some of the great Sanskrit dramas, Bharatavāk yas are general in tone, asking for the welfare and happiness of the people (particularly of good men), long and healthy life, good government, good rains, good crops, fame and prosperity to poets &c., as in the Vikra morvasiya, Mahāviracarita, Mālatimādhava, Ratnāvali, Veni samhāra, Mrcchakatika. In the Mālavikā° the last rerse requests the queen always to bestow her favours on him and adds that as long as Agnimitra is the protector of the subje cts, it is not necessary to invoke such blessings as the absence of floods, drought, locusts, invasions &c. The Sākuntala ends on two notes. The first half says ‘may the king be assiduous in bringing about welfare to the people and may the literary efforts of those whose learning is great become famous.’ The second half is ‘may the self-existent Śiva eliminate re-birth in my case.’ It is difficult to hold thut this refers to an indi

ATO

160 Tho T ee in the Mudrārikjasa is put in the mouth of Raksasa

in somo ms8 and in that of Canakya in others. It is as follows; बाराहीमात्मयोनेस्तनुमवनविधावास्थितस्यानुरूपां यस्य प्राग्दन्तकोटिं प्रलय. परिगता शिश्रिये भूतधात्री । म्लेच्छरुद्वेज्यमाना भुजयुगमधुना संश्रिता राज. मूर्तेः स श्रीमद्वन्धुभृत्याश्विरमवतु महीं पार्थिवश्चन्द्रगुप्तः ॥ There are various readings in the last povon lotters viz. qiféranga: , 9tfalsafiaaf, qføār prant and othors which may be nogettata ed. The prosent author holds that the propor reading ishiga SATUA:.

POOKA

FOUNDED

1927

14. The Arthuśāstra of Kautilya

169

vidual actor (the word ‘mama’ being there ). It must refer to Dugyanta, who is the last to speak (before the benediction) and possibly there is another suggested meaning that expres ses the yearning of the poet Kālidāsa himself. Therefore, it is not quite accurate to say that the Bharatavākya is no part of the drama or that it is a chorus by all the actors ; in that case ‘mama’in the Sākuntala would be inappropriate. The dramatist was to write the Bharatavākya and it is possible that several dramas though they contained Bharatavākya were not or could not be put on the stage at all. The Bharata vakya, thought not an essential part of the action of the play, is still said by one of the prominent characters in the play. Avantivarman has nothing to do with the drama or the chara cters therein. The proper reading is therefore ‘pĀrthivas candraguptah.’ It is proper to hold that Canakya, who is the dominant character of the story of the drama, recites that benediction. The poet Visakhadatta was the grandson of a sāmanta (feudatory chief) Vaṭeśvaradatta and the son of Mahārāja (king) Bhaskaradatta and therefore it would be a fine piece of flattery if there be an oblique or indirect refere nce to Emperor ( Mahārājādhiraja ) Candragupta in the words of the drama. The Gupta Emperor Candragupta II ruled till 414 A. D. Vide Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions (1888) p. 15 and JBORS Vol. 30 pp, 1-46. If the poet flourished under him the drama was composed about 400 A. D. Taking Avanti varman as the king meant in the Bharatavākya (which is very unlikely ), the draina must have been composed in the latter half of the 6th century, as Avantivarman took a great part in vanquishing the Hūnas about 582 A. D. Vide 1. H. Q. Vol. 30 (1930) pp. 175-178 and pp. 485-6 for a discussion on Bharata vākya.

The Kāmandakiyanitisara highly praises Vinnugupta as shown above. The date of Kimanduka is also debatable. I showed so far back as 1911 ( in I. A. for 1911 p. 236 ) that Vāmana in his Kāvyślankārasūtra quoted from some work not available now a half verse Kāmam Kimandaki nitirasyā rasyā divānisam’ as an example of one variety of Yamaka. Dr. Jolly in his haste to dispose of evidence against his part theory treats this in a slipshod manner and gives a note on p. 8 (of Introduction) that the 8th century seems to be the most likely date of the Nitisūra of Kūmandaka. I shoes that Vimana quotes a half verge not from the Nitisāg but

STITUDE

UNDED

170

History of Dharmaścīstra

from some work in which occurs the statement the dhi (intellect of some person ) indeed day and night enjoys (the reading of ) Kamandaki-niti’. Vāmana in his own vṛtti on IV. 6. 2 states that Yamakas are treated at length in a work called Hariprabodha. That work is now not available. Vāmana elsewhere expressly says that the examples he gives are mostly from others (parakiyaisca puskalaih). It would have been a long time before the Nitisāra became famous. A work now unknown refers to it and a half verse from that work is quoted as an example of a figure of speech by the rhetorician Vāmana ( from Kashmir ). This might take centuries. The Nitisāra may be centuries earlier than 800 A. D. for all we know. Kāmandaka further tells us that he looked upon Viṣṇugupta as his Guru. In the Sāntiparva (chap. 123 ) there is a dialogue between Kāmandaka and Angarista, king of Anga. The name Kamandaka is thus comparatively ancient.

There is nothing to prevent us from holding that the Nītisāra of KĀmandaka may belong even to the third century A. D. I am here concerned only with showing that Dr. Jolly did not carefully consider the matter and is wrong in putting the Kūmandakiyanitisāra in the 8th century A. D. when he agreed to put Vāmana about 800 A. D. It is surprising that Winternitz also refers the Arthaśāstra to the 3rd century A.D. (p. 28 of Cal. Review, April-June, 1924). Dr. Jolly un. necessarily parades patent facts e. g. he remarks (on p. 11 ) that the Bșhatsamlitā (chap. 78.1 ) contains nearly the same list of princes killed in their harem as the Arthasāstra (I. 20. 15-17). In the first place, the list is not quite the same. But, apart from that, one would like to know what conclusion he draws from the fact that the Br̥hatsarhitā contains some or most cases of treachery mentioned by Kautilya is not clear. As he holds that A. belongs to the 3rd century A. D. it is clear that if there is a borrowing it is Varāhamihira who borrows (as the latter flourished in the first-half of the Gth century A. D.). The Harsacarita (VI) mentions these cases and several more. The Nitisāra (VII. 51-54 ) also mentious these cases of treachery.

The Kathāsaritsagara of Somadeva (in the Kathāpitha. lambaka chap. 5 verses 108–124 ) refers to the story of Canakya having brought about the death of Yogananda and placed Candragupta ( pūrvanandasuta ) on the Magadhat throne. That work purports to give successfully the context

14. The Arthugāstrou of Kuulilya

171

of the Br̥hatkatha ( 1. 1. 3), avers that it closely follows the original, does not depart even slightly from it and that only the language differs and there is abridgment in it and some detail (I. 1. 10). The Br̥hatkathā of Gupādhya is supposed to have been composed in the Paiśnci dialect about the first century A. D. It is mentioned by Bina in Harsacarita ( Intro. verse 17 ) and in Dandin’s Kavyadarśa ( I. 38 ). The Br̥hat kathāmañjari of Ksemendra ( II. 216 ) refers to the story that Cānakya brought about the death of Yogananda (by magic ) and placed Candragupta ( described as ‘pūrvanandasutah’) on the throne.

So far I have dealt with works that name Visugupta, Cānakya and Kautilya singly or collectively and the dates of which though not very certain can be fixed within narrow limits. Now I shall refer to some Purāṇas which mention Candragupta and his minister Kautilya. There are five Puranas that have chiefly to be considered viz. Vāyu 199. 326-332, Brahmandu III. 74, Viṣṇu (IV. 24, 25-33 in prose), Bhāgavata (XII. 17 ) und Mats yn ( 272. 19-26). The Matsya account is rather defective; Viyu aud Brahmanda agree, Viśṇu and Bhagavata agree. All tive say in a prophetic vein that Nandas will rule for 100 years, that Kautilya would uproot the Nandas and place Candragupta on the throne, the latter will rule for 24 years, his son Bindusāra ( Bhadragāra in Vāyu ) for 25 years and Asoka (grandson ) will rule for 36 years. Some mention niue Maurya kings and others men tion ten kings, but all agree that the dynasty will rule for 137 years, though there is difference in the number and sequence of kings. Four Puranas (except the Matsya ) appear to refer to Guptavanisa but do not nume even the great conqueror Samudragupta. Therefore, it may be argued with great probability that they took their present form about 320-335 A. D. It is not necessary to enter into details here. Those interested in the Purāṇa historcial traditions may refer to pages 842-861 of the fifth volume of the H. of Dh, and to & paper by Mr. H. G. Sustri in JOI ( Baroda ) Vol. IX pp. 387-392. The Dipavariisa, of the 5th ceutury A. 1), and a Ceylonese Chronicle, supports the Paurinic account so far that Candragupta’s son was Bindusāra, whose son Piyadassi (or Asoka or Piyadassana ) and that Asoka Tan crowned king 218 years after the passing away of Buddhaper ( VI. 14-15) and that Candragupita ruled for twenty-four172

· llistory of Dhurmuścīstra

years (Dipavamśa V. 73 and 100 ), as the Prirõras say. The Mahāvamsa (Geiger’s ed, of 1908, I. 5. 10-20 ) states that Canakya, after killing the 9th Nanda, will anoint as king Candragupta Maurya (a Ksatriya), that he will rule 24 years, his son Bindusāra will rule for 28 years, then Asoka, after killing his brothers will be anointed king.

It is known from Greek, Buddhist and Jain sources and Indian inscriptions that Candragupta, Bindusara and Asoka were historic persons. We know from Greek sources that Candragupta and Seleucus, the successor of Alexander the Great in the East, formed an alliance and that Seleucus ceded to Candragupta parts of Gedrosia ( Baluchistan ), Arachosia ( Kandābāra ) and Paropamisadae (i. e. Kabul ), all of which stretched up to the Indus ), vide Tarn on the Greeks in Bact ria and India ‘, 1938, p. 100 and Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VI. pp. 413-14 ( which gives a brief note on what Erato sthenes says about this treaty ). Similarly, the accounts in Matsya (272. 18-23 ), Vāyu chap. 99. 326-337 and other Purāṇas about Pusyamitra and his descendants and about the Sātavāhanas have been found to be substantially correct from the Sunga Inscription from Ayodhyā (E. I. Vol. 20 p. 54 ), Nanaghat, Nasik and other Inscriptions. There is no reason, except unreusonable 828 picion and prejudice, why the conne ction of Kautilya or Canakya with Candragupta mentioned in the Purāṇas ( as in Matsya 272. 22 and Vāyu 99. 330-1), and the Mahāvansa anıl other early literature should not be held to be at least probable. The embellishments and fabulous trappings of the story may not be taken seriously. But the core of the story should be accepted as quite probable and should not be rejected unceremoniously. Alexander’s was not a conquest of India in the ordinary sense of the word, the sense in which Alexander conquered Persia (see Tarn in the work cited p. 131 ). Tarn states (ibid, p. 174 notes 2 and 3) that some writers have put forward the theory that in the treaties between Candragupta and Seleucus there was a grant by the Iudian king to the Greeks of the right to intermarry in the Ksatriya-varṇa and Taru appears to hold that Candragupta’s marriage with a daughter of Seleucus might have taken place ( note 3 ). The Cambridge H. of India ( Vol. I. p. 472 ) observes . for Seleucus the task of meeting Candragupta in war proved too great. Seleucus was content to secure a safe retirement and a gift of 500 elephants by the surrender of all the Grecker

14. The Arthuśīstre of Kautilyo

173

dominions as far as the Kabul valley’. This shows that Candragupta was a very capable man and therefore his cause was espoused by Cānakya who hailerl from Gāndhāra. Dr. Chhabra ( in the Woolner Commemoration Voluine pp. 51-52) suggests that in the story in the Rāmāyana (Uttarakānda 100-101 ) about the war between Bharata and his sons Taksa and Puskala on the one hand and Sailūsa on the other, Sailūga stands for Seleucus. At present there is nothing but the phonetic resemblance of the two words in favour of this idea.

It is knowu that l’orns first fought with Alexander but later on he became reconciled to him ( Tarn’s work p. 169 ); however, other people in North-West India fought despera tely with Alexander (ibil!. Alexander died in 323 B. C. It is highly probable that Parvataka mentioned as the father of Malayaketu in the Mudrūrūknasa is the king Porus who (after first opposing Alexander) had become an ally of the Greeks in Alexander’s days ( Tarn pr. 46, 169 ). Some Jaina sources put the accession of Caudragupta at 312 or 313 B. C. (vide Cambridge History of India vol. I, 1922 p. 698 and Bhattasali in J. R. A. S. 1932 pp. 273, 284 ). Tarn suggests that Candragupta seized Magudha in 321 B. C. and completad the conquest of the whole of Northern Iudia (including the countries in the Northwest) by 312 B. C. (vide Tarn’s work p. 47 n. 3). Much of this history is conjectural. One thing is quite clear that Candragupta got possession of some territory to the West of the Indus and secured some parts in the Panjab and also the crowu of Magadha. But the sequence of the several events is not clear and not beyond debate. From the Mudrārāksasa it appears that Candragupta first secured Panjab (probably with the help of Canakya and his suppor ters) in addition to what he got ceded by Seleucus, that Cānakya was most probably from Gandhūra, as in his treat ment of Vāk pārūsya (damage or injury by words ) be says (A. III. 18. 8 ) by that ( what precedes) are explained the defamation concerning the learning of professional story tellers and libel of the country of those who come from the country of Prajjunaka und Gaudhara’. As Gandhāra is specially mentioned here from among the dozens of countries in the continent of Iudia, it follows with great probability that he was born there or had lived there long. The story of Mudrāraksasa shows that in the times of that author it wako believeil that Parvataki was killed by foul meuus, that oration

174

ments worn by Parvataka had fallen into the hands of Candra gupta (Act I just before verse 19 ) and verse 19 refers to five chiefs of North-West India as the most prominent among Mleccha chiefs. According to Greek sources, Porns was killed before B. C. 318 (Tarn’s work p. 46). The Mudrārāksasa opens when Candragupta had recently occupied the Magadha throne. In Act II of the Mudrārāksasa we read ( before verse 14 ) that Kusumapura ( the capital of Magadha ) had been invested by the army of Candragupta and Parvateśvara which consisted mostly of Sakas, Yavanas, Kirātas, Kambojas, Pārasikas and Bāhlikas and supported by the counsels of Cāṇakya. This means that for securing the capital of Magadha soldiers from the Northwest of India had been brought by Candragupta and Parvataka and Cāṇakya had the leading part in that. In Act III after verse 24 Cānakya says to Candragupta, ‘we have recently secured the kingdom of the Nandas’ and in Act IV, 14 Rākṣasa himself tells Malayaketu that the Maurya has recently become king. It seems that Candragupta first gained provinces in Northwest India and then secured Magadha. Besides, in Act IV ( before verse five ) Malayaketu says that it was the tenth month after his father’s death. That shows that within a few months of Parvataka’s death, Candragupta had recovered the throne of Magadha and then engaged in a feigned quarrel with Cānakya about Kaumudimahotsava in the capital. A short time before the false quarrel Malayaketu had left the capital. Hence, according to the Mudrārāksasa, Candragupta came to the throne about 317 B. C. if we accept the identity of Parvataka and Porus ( who died in 318 B. C. according to Tarn. ). The Cambridge History of India (vol. I, p. 470 ) holds that the Mudrārāksasa dates probably from the 7th century A. D., and that we need not question its evidence’.

In the Kādambari of Bana ( first half of 7th century) we have a striking reference to Kautilya’s work as a cruel161 work because it mostly contains advice that is ‘very wicked’. This shows how Kautilya’s work had already become unpopular in North India ( before the first half of the 7th century ) on acco unt of its vigorous advocacy of the doctrine that the end justi. fies the means. This explains to some extent the paucity of

161 किंवा तेषां सांप्रतं येषामतिनृशंसमायोपदेशनिघणं कौटिल्यशास्त्र प्रमाणम् ।

Fat Ferti p. 109 ( loturson’s oil. ).

ON!

EATINDER

1.4. The Arthuśāstra of Kautilya

175

the mss. of the Arthaśāstra in the whole of India, particularly in North India, from where so far only a fragment of a ms. of the work has been recovered. The Matsyapurāṇa (7. 63) contains a story in which the speaker (Indra ), who is suppo sed to have interfered with the womb of Diti that contained 49 foetuses and then made them Maruts, is made to say that he commited a wicked deed following the precepts of Artha sastra.102 This is probably a reference to the Kauṭiliya by the author of the Matsya-Purāṇa in the present state of our knowledge. If this be accepted the Arthaśāstra would have to be pushed back at least some centuries before 250-300 A.D., the probable date of the Matsya, as deinonstrated in H, of Dh. S. Vol. V. pp. 852, 854.

The extant Arthaśāstra itself claims that it is a work of Kautilya. (1) This Sāstra ( book ), that is easy to learn and to understand, that is definite as regards its essence, meaning and words, that is free from prolixity in matter has been com posed by Kautilya; (2) Having gone through all śāstras one after another and having secured (knowledge of) the practice (in such matters ), Kautilya composed these rules about edicts for the sake of kings (II. 10. 63). In the very first sentence of his work he states’ this one text-book on the science of polity has been composed mostly by collecting toge ther (the teachings ) of as many treatises as have been establi shed by ancient teachers for securing the acquisition and pro tection of the earth ( realm ); (3) This Sāstra ( text-book ) has been composed by him who, in resentment quickly raised (re-arranged or regenerated ) the science of Politics, the wea pon (to strike down enemies ) and the earth that had fallen into the hands of the Nanda kings. These three passages along with the occurrence of the words iti Kautilyaḥ"183 about 182 POTTEI HAFITT ATT 74 1 ATTO 7. 63. 183 सुखग्रहणविज्ञेयं तत्त्वार्थपदनिश्चितम् । कौटिल्येन कृतं शास्त्रं विमुक्तग्रन्थ

PakTTT 11 370 Tia I. 1. 19; WARTIETOUCLEFIT TUTASH TI Salamat Sa TOP TIHAta fart: ma: ll 378f. II. 10. 63; 79 Tie a शस्त्रं च नन्दराजगता च भूः । अमर्षणोद्धृतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम् ॥ XV. I. 73 ; Tu may have boon purposely used in two sensor (1) for kings in general, (2 ) for the King (i, e. for Candragupka itu For the 3rd sloka quoted compare Kumandaka I. 6 quoted aboven The word ‘urldbrtn’is nised in three allied sonses hore; witb ( . ) modelled ( with sāstra ), (2) raised ( with gaetra ) and extricabat or saved ( with bbūh).

FOUNOEL

#77 17:11

176

eighty times and the testimony of comparatively early works and authors like the Mudrārāksasa (5th or 6th century A. D. probably ), Bāna (first half of 7th century A. D. ), the Dasa kumāracarita make a very strong case for holding Kautilya as the author of the work on Arthaśāstra.

At the end of the whole work we find a verse which means ‘on seeing the numerous divergent views of the com mentators on the Sāstras (other text-books on politics ), Viṣṇugupta himself composed (a work ) containing both sutra and bhāsya ‘.16 This verse is not composed by Viṣṇu gupta but by some one else. It does not mean that the Arthaśāstra has sūtras and bhāsya thereon. It means that the work includes the form and merits of both sūtras and bhāsyas thereon i.e. it is very brief when that quality is requ ired and it contains detailed expositions when they are requi red. He knew that svītras must above all be alpākṣara’ (concise ) and a bhāsya. must explain the meaning of the words of the sutra and add expository material. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1182, notes 1926-27 about the characteristics of sūtra and bhāsya. The aphoristic style (in K. A. ) may be seen in such passages as ). 2. 1-10, 1. 3. 1-15, II. 10. 13-20, III. I. 6-11; the expository style may be seen in VII. 1. 32, V. 5.7 and long sentences in I. 21. 7, VII. 15. 12. etc. Johnston in his

two studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya’in JRAS for 1929 (pp. 77-102 ) states that the Larikāvatārasūtra was translated into Chinese in 443 A. D., that therefore the main body of the work is not later than 4th century A. D. and that (p. 87) in verses 813–7 the rois are announced in the following order viz. Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, Yājìavalkya, Vālmiki, Masurāksa, Kautilya and Āśvalāyana. Yājñavalkya is most probably the sage of the Brhadāraṇyaka Up. Most of the others belong

164 दृष्टा विप्रतिपत्तिं बहुधा शास्त्रेषु भाग्यकाराणाम् । स्वयमेव विष्णुगुप्तश्चकार सूत्रं

7 HOT 27 il Winternitz is mistaken in thinking (p. 16 in Cal. R. 125 ) that the vorso is in bad motre. This is an āryā, the last. pāda of which should hnve 15 mātrīs, the last word is ‘ca’which is short. But there is a special rulo in ancient motrics that the last lettor in a pada oven if short inny he tronted as long ; vido Pingala chandas sūtra . 10, Chandonusagana of Hemacandra (1.6) Bert Vittaratnāknra I.9. Compare tho verse 37747HETTE…17572 in Real 13. 3 where the Inst lettor lias to be taken as equal to two mātrās.

FOUNDE

1917

1.1. The Arthuśāstra of Kautilya

177

to centuries preceding the Christian era and therefore the name of Kautilya, it seems, was known some centuries before Christ and as most of the names are those of authors, Kauti lya should also lie regarded as an author in this passage.

The Tantrākhyāyika ( the earliest extant version of the Pañcatantra ) which, acc. to Prof. Hertel ( the editor in HOS ), is certainly not later than 300 A.D., pays homage to Canakya the great as one of the expounders of Rījaśāstra ( verse 2). Dr. Jolly (Intro. p. 8 ) wants to put the date of Tantrākhyā yikā one century later (in order to be able to say that Artha śāstra might have been composed about 300 A. D. ) simply on the ground that the collection of tales was not translated into Pahlavi till about 570 A. D. and since the collection of tales agrees closely with the Pahlavi translation. This is not a tenable argument at all. The Pañcatantra had several versions. We do not know what version the Persian translator had before him. He may have translated from a version older than other versions available in India at that time.

Dr. Jolly remarks (on p. 10 of Intro.) that the exhorta tion to soldiers contained in A. (x. 3 ) are quite ‘misleading. There are two verses in the exhortation ( quoted below).104a The first occurs in the extant Parāśarasmrti III. 44, which is comparatively a late smrti as shown below (under Parāśara smrti ). Therefore, the first verse ( if it is a genuine part of the original Arthaśāstra ) might have been borrowed by both A. and Parāśarasınști from some other earlier work. The 2nd verse occurs in the Pratijìā-Yaugaudharayana IV. 3 (one of the so-called Bhūsa plays). There is a sharp cleavage of opinion among Sanskrit scholars as to whether all the numerous plays published as Bhāsa’s are the works of the ancient Bhasa who is praised even by Kālidāsa. The pre sent author holds that almost all the published plays attri

1644 Hort cos auta’ ya , 471: HestafH TFT4, #212

हितैः परोऽभिहन्तव्यः’ इति । वैदेष्वप्यनुश्रूयते-समानदक्षिणानां यज्ञानाम वभृथेषु ‘सा ते गतिर्या शूराणाम् ’ । इति । अपीह श्लोको भवतः । यान् यज्ञ सबैस्तपसा च विप्राः स्वर्गपिणः पात्रचयैश्च यान्ति । क्षणेन तानप्यतियालि शुराः प्राणान् सय द्वेषु परित्यजन्तः ॥ नवं शरावं सलिलस्य पूर्ण सुसंस्कृहंदिर्भ कृतोत्तरीयम् । तत्तस्य मा भून्नरकं च गच्छेद्यो भर्तृपिण्डस्य कृते न युवा ।।

fat i SPEZIE 1.3.27-31; comparo Trata 78. 31 other स्वान्वीरांस्तान्मनुरब्रवीत् । -anal ville मनु VII. 89.

ITUD

FOURDE

litti rist

Bhandarkar

Dacoarch ins

178

History of Dhurmusastra

buted to Bhāsa are not the works of the ancient Bhāsa. Besi des, the verses yān yajñasanghaih’ and ’navam sarāvam’ are preceded by the words ‘śrnvantu atrabhavantah’ in the speech of the gātrasevaka in the play. So, he appears to be quoting from another source. Further, the Pratijñā shows acquaintance with Arthaśāstra.165 Besides, the king’s exhor tation has iti’ at the end of X. 3. 27. The passage’ vedesva pyanusrūyate … … hantavyah’ has iti at the end and there is iti at the end of the two verses also. The passages ( x. 3 29-31 ) seem to be later additions and there are three itis instead of one in the supposed exhortation of the king. Therefore, if the two verses occur in the A. they are both quotations and further they may have been taken over by the Parāśara Smrti and the Pratijñā from the Arthaśāstra. Sten Konow in ‘Kautilya Studies’ (Oslo, 1945, pp. 1-71 )’ sees no serious objection to the theory of Bhāsa borrowing from Kautilya’ (p. 6). Dr. B. M. Barua in Bliārata-Kaumudi vol. I. pp. 85-119 ( paper styled ‘Arthaśāstra, a blend of old and new’) seems to hold that both verses in A. X. 3 are traceable in the plays of Bhūsa (p. 99 ) but he does not condescend to tell his readers in what drama of Bhāsa the first verse “Yan yajñasanghaih’ occurs. Dr. Jolly also (Intro. p. 10 ) is vague about these two verses. He does not state from what play the verse · Yan yajñao’ is taken. The first verse ‘Yan yajñasanghaih’ with slight variations is quoted from Visuudharma by Heinādri on Vrata -kõnda vol. II p. 971 ( and as stated above it occurs in Parāśara Smrti also ). It is remarkable that even Keith on r. 491 (in B. C. Law Felicita tion Volume Part I ), vaguely says ‘In A. (X.3) are to be found two verses which apparently are taken from Bhāsa’, He never bothered to tell his readers in what play the first verse occurs, just as Dr. Barua and Dr. Jolly do. This is a good example of how sweeping assertions are made by even experienced scholars.

Among the circumstances for rejecting the thirteen Trivan drum plays as the works of the famous Bhāsa, a predecessor of Kālidāsa, may be mentioned the following: (1) the plays

165

INS

sfaarst. 11. 13 is ‘TÉNETIHTOTIET 79T 11477559: 9GT: Trail mint apparaatit apg1177: il qut sooms to refer to the rest spelare VII ( B ARU ).

FOUNDED

1917

1.). The Arthuśāstra of Kuutilyo

179

have come down anonymously; ( 2 ) verses ascribed to Bhasa in several anthologies are not found in the thirteen plays; (3) even verses quoted from a play called Svapnavāsavadattā are not found in the Svapnavāsavadattā ( of Trivandrum ); ( 4 ) that out of thirteen plays five are only one act plays not fit to be called Nātakas at all. Vide a paper in Calcutta Review for 1924 (October-December ) pp. 339-349. Several scholars have placed Bhisa at the end of the 2nd century A.D. e. g. Sten Konow (in E. Kuhu Presentation vol. 106 ff. and Losny in J. O. I., Baroda ) vol. XIII No. 1 p. 48. This does not affect those who hold that A. belongs to about 300 B. C.

One question about Candragupta may be briefly mention ed here. Puranas vive confused accounts, Matsya ( 272. 26 ) and Vāyu ( 99. 326-27 ) state that the kings after Mahāpadma will be born of Sūdra women. But Vāyu states that Mabā nandi’s son from a Sūdra wife will be Mahāpadma. That means that Caudrayupta was deemed at the time of the Purā plas to be the son of a Ksatriya from a Sūdra wife. The author of the Mudrārāksasa ( whether he belonged to the 5th century A. D. or 6th or later) came long after the Puranas, was per meated by Paurānic lure and therefore he generally uses the word ‘vr̥ṣala’ (which means Śūdra in medieval Sanskrit works ) with reference to Candragupta when speaking of him personally, but in his absence he several times employs merely the word ‘Candragupta’ (as after 1. 12. 14 ) or Vrsala (just before I. 10). In II. 18 just before approaching king Candra gupta occupying the throne Cānak ya speaks of him as Vrsa lena Vrṣeṇa rājuam’ (Vrsala, the best of kings ). There is absolutely no evidence to hold that the kingmaker Cānakya called hiin Vrsala’. It is the dramatist saturated thro ugh and through with laurāṇika ideas that Ksatriyas ceased to exist after the Nandas, who applies the word Vrsala to king Candragupta. But it must be emphasized that the Mudrārākṣasa also shows that Nandakula was the pitṛkula of Candragupta, acc. to Rākṣasa ; vide the words ‘Nandakulu manena pitrkulabhūtam ghūtitam’ (after IV. 12 ) and V. 19

• Mauryossau Svūmiputrah.’ It is to be noted that in the Mudrārāksasa Cānakya refers to Caudragupta as Vakogu also (just before I. 19). Frantic efforts have been made by some writers (e. g. by Mr. Goviud Pai in Gode com. vokamos part III pp. 141-150, particularly p. 146, by Mr. K. CASH in I. II. O. Vol. 13, pp. 641-653, and by H. K. Deb in I. Eldorferie

OONA

1917

A

Research Instit

180

llistory of Dhurmuścistru.

Vol. 8, pp. 466-479) to explain away the word ‘Vroala ‘in certain ways such as holding Vrsala as the Sanskrit equiva lent of the word Basileos (Basileus ) occurring on the obverse of the coins of Menander and Demetrius ( who became king in 190 B. C. ; vide Cambridge History of India, Vol. I. pp. 586, 588). But this is a vain etfort and has not been accepted by many scholars. The Chamberlain’s words on the simple fur nishings of Cānukya’s abode (Act III before verse 16 ) ’to him His Majesty Candragupta is a mere Vrsala and rightly so’ indicate in what sense the word Vrsala was applied to Candragupta by Visakhadatta in the Madriraksasa or was understood by the Chamberlain. It should be noted, however, that the word Vrsala occurs in Rg. X. 34. 11 and is applied to the gambler (‘so aguer-ante Vrsalah papāda’). Here Vrsala seems to mean ‘a miserable or unhappy person’. In the Rgveda ’la’ is a flixed to some words as indicating endearmentor sympathy e.g. the word sisūla’ in Rg. X. 78. 6. Several papers have been written on the origin of Candravuptr such as in B.C. Law presentation Vol. pp. 590-610, by Dr. A. Ghosh in I. H. Q. Vol. VI pp. 271-283 ( which rebuts Sūlra origin), and by Dr. R. K. Mukerjee in Woolner Commemoration Vol. pp. 93 99. Rīksasa speaks of Candragupta as Mauryaputra in the draina ( Act 11. 7) but Kulahina’ and in VI. 6 he calls him Vrsala which word in the context means nothing else but Sūdra (his words being gatā sighrena srirvisalam-aviniteva vrgali). The difficulty is that we have no contemporary record about the status of Candragupta ( i. e. about 320 B.C.). The views of ancient sages differeil. Vasistha (I. 25) expressly states that some allowed even a dviju to marry a Sūdra woman but without the use of Vedic mantras. Manu III. 13 (latter half) who allowed a Ksatriya to marry a woman of his own varṇa or a vaiśya or a sūdra woman condemns in III. 14 such marri ages. It is possible that in the 4th century B. C. a Ksatriya could validly marry a Sūdra woman. Kautilya provides (Arthaśāstra III. 6. 22 ) that in the case of Brāhmunas the ṣon born of a śūdra wife should receive one-third of the decea sed father’s property as his share and u Sapinda as heir shall receive two-thirds’ for the purpose of offering the oblations to the deceased.

The Anusasunupurva says ’tisro bhāryā brāhmanisya dve bhārye ksatriyasya tu i ratyarthamapi sadrī syān-nabyna burapare janāḥ’( 44. 11-12).

STITUTE

FOUNDE!

1917

14. Tho Arthuścīstrce of Kautilya

181

A learned Astrologer named Vinnugupta is mentioned by Varābamibira in the Brhaj-jātaka in two places (VII. 7 and XXI. 3). In the first reference is made to the views of Viṣṇu gupta, Devasvāmin and Siddhasena about the length of life a man may enjoy based on certain horoscopic indications. On VII. 8 Utjala, himself a great astrologer, remarks that the two verses ( VII. 7 and 8) do not appear to be Varāhamihi ra’s, but Utpala explains thein. Iu XXI. 3 Varāhamihira refers to the view of Viṣṇugupta that Satyācārya held that Aquarius as the rising sign in a man’s horoscope does not betoken good throughout that mun’s life, while the Yavanas held that it is the Kumblialvādaśamsa at birth that forbodes evil, while Viṣṇugupta challenged both those views. On XXI. 3 the coinmentary of Utpala (as printed ) ascribes the view to two viz., Viṣṇugupta and Canakya, while the com. on VII. 7 states that Viṣṇugupta’s another name was Cānakya. Apart from this confusion probably due to scribes, it has to be said that the astrologer Viṣṇugupta must be entirely different from the author of the Arthaśīstra, since the Arthaśāstra appears to ridicule consulting astrology too much iu IX. 4. 26, which means ’the ( coveted ) object ( or goal) slips from the foolish person who continuously consults the stars, for the object is (the auspicious or favourable ) constellation; what will stars do’? Besides, the system of Rūsis is coin parati vely a late matter in Sanskrit works. In his extensive work Kautilya nowhere refers to Rāśis ( signs of the Zodiac), much less to their influence on human beings. Many renowned persons bear the saine naine. We have Candragupta Maurya as well as two kings of the Gupita dynasty called Candra gupta. Similarly, there may have been two or more Viṣṇu guptas. Utpala, the commentator of the Bșhajjātaka, com posed a commentary ( vivști ) on the Yogayātrā of Varāha mihira. On many passages of the Yoguyātrā Utpala quotes the Arthasāstra as ‘Canakya’s ? 188

106

SI

For example, on folio 89 ( of the ms, in the Bombay Asiatio Society’s Library of the wingtailaria ) we find ‘TfUFT 31135 I POTAHTHA.

1921 19274f9T: ’ ( 5efo VII, 4. 2. ); Again on 8a TOP 317€ garoui #xpa: 1’. This occurs in eo VII, 1. 10. On globe XII. 4 where the word धर्मार्थशाखाणि ocours उत्पल explane I folio 780 ) B retot 91901999aifa ‘.

POON

CU182

History of Dharnusóstra

Utpala, a Kashmirian, flourished before 850 A. D. ; vide the present author’s note in Journal of Asiatic Society, Bombay, New Series Vol. 33 ( 1960 ) pp. 147-149. The Sārā vali of Kalyāna-varman ( Nir. ed. 1928 ), who is earlier than Utpala, but later than Varībamihira, also cites certain astro logical views of Cānakya in Chapter 6. 3 and 47. 45.187 In the latter passage the view that is cited as Viṣṇugupta’s in the Byhajjātaka XXI. 3 is cited as Cānakya’s. As tbe far famed Arthaśāstra Viṣṇugupta was known under two more names (Canakya and Kautilya ) at least from the 5th or 6th century A. D., the date of the Mudrārāksasa, Vinnugupta the Astrologer is cited also as Cānakya in the Sārāvali.

In Kern’s edition of the Br. Sam. (II. 4 after prose passages ) a certain verse quoted in the note occurs preceded by the words ‘uktam cācāryavisnnguptena’, thereby showing that Varāha quotes a verse of Vinnugupta with acknowledge ment. In the edition of M. M. Sudhakara Dvivedi the sloka is preceded by the commentary (of Utpala ) “uktam cīcārya vinnuguptena tathā hyāha ‘apyarnavasya.” 168 As this verse refers to Kūlu as a deity it is probably taken from an astrononical, mathematical and astrological work. Probably, it is the same Viṣṇugupta who is quoted in the Brhajjātaka.

One of the arguments of Dr. Jolly is that many passages of the Arthaśāstra, particularly from the 3rd and 4th adhi karanas on Dharmasthiya and Kantakaśodhana (i. e. roughly civil and criminal law ) recur almost literally in the Smrtis of Yājñvalkya, Nārada, and Manu; and he holds that K. was acquainted with the whole body of Dharmaśāstra literature much as we now have it (M. 12-20). Then he examines Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasutra in relation to Arthasāstra and holds that there can hardly be any doubt that the Kāmasutra was deeply intluenced by the Arthuśistra (p. 24 ). That proposi. tion has been accepted by all those who have written on this

….

……….——–

167 कुम्भोदयो न शस्तो . लग्नविधौ सर्वथैव सन्यमते । यवनैर्वर्गोपि तथा

Trolar ara asta il fattarest 47. 45. This is a paraphrase of

बृहजातक XXL 3. 168 उक्तं चाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन। अप्यर्णवस्य पुरुषः प्रतरन् कदचिदासादयेदनिया

वेगवशेन पारम् । न त्वस्य कालपुरुषाख्यमहार्णवस्य गच्छेत्कदाचिदहा मन TT 9174 TECIO II. 4 p. 5( oil. Korn.)

Y ST174) Хрooнд

FOUNDS

1917

N

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kuuṭilya

183

subject. But he tacks on another proposition that no long interval of time can have passed between the composition of two such cognate productions’. Jacobi does not agree with this at all and the present author also cannot agree with this dictum of Dr. Jolly, for which there is no authority except his own (the dictum that between two coguate productions no lony interval can pass ). And even the date of the Kāmasūtra as 4th century or so( Dr. Jolly’s Intro. p. 29 ) may be regarded as later by at least a century or more. As regards comparison with the Smitis, Jolly puts down 33 passages (on pp. 12-17). Out of these 20 are from Yājñavalkyasmṛti, only 4 from Nārada, 3 from Manu, two from Viṣṇu and one each from Baudhāyana, Katyayana, Vyāsa. Excepting the passages from Yāj. and Nārada the rest are so few that no scbolar ( who is not already prepossessed in favour of it) will agree that they are enough to hold that Kautilya is the borrower. Dr. Jolly himself had doubts even about Yāj. as he says ( on p. 18 of Intro, ) It is true that some facts seem to point the other way, so that Y. instead of K. (Kautilya ) would have to be regarded as the borrower, either directly or through the medium of a common source’. It will be shown later on that the Smrti of Yīj. should be held to be the borrower and presents far greater development of juristic provisions than the work of Kautilya. Keith, without himself examining the data, holds that Dr. Jolly has proved that Yīj. was used by Kautilya and that the evidence is conclusive (at p. 494 ) of Keith’s paper in B. C. Law Felicitation Vol. I. pp. 477–495 ). This is like one blind man following another blind man (as said in the Mundakopaniṣad I. 2. 8 ).

Both Dr. Jolly and Dr. Winternity rely on the Indica of Megasthenes ( while adınitting that both M. and K. agree on many points ) to show that great divergences exist between the Kauṭiliya and the account left by Megasthenes. There are great infirmities as regards the work (Indica ) itself. The original work of Megasthenes has not come down. Only fragments of his work are available. McCrindle (on Megas. thenes and Arrian’ (1877) states at p. 19 ‘since Strabo, Arrianus and Diodorus have directed their attention to relate nearly the same things, it has resulted that the greatest part of the Indiku haues been completely lost and that of many passages, singularly enough, three epitomes gre extant to which a fourth is added by Plinius’. Therefore,

184

Ilistory of Dhurmaślīstra

absence of certain matters in his account cannot be used as an argument at all. How can one know what was contained in what has been lost or was not contained. An argument from silence is not strong and often hall enough but in this case it is much worse (it really is no argument at all). Besides, the period of M’s stay in India is uncertain. The Cambridge History of India Vol. I, ( Ancient India ) n. 472 remarks M. resided in India for a considerable time and perhaps on more than one occasion at the court of Pataliputra. The dates of his mission must be later than the campaign of Seleucus (circa 305 B. C.) and earlier than the leath of Candragupta (297 B.C.) but the time is otherwise undetermined. Prof. Winternitz in Cal. Review ( for April-June 1924 ) states on p. 19 that Mega sthenes came to India as ambassador to Candragupta’s court in 302 B. C. i. e. he resided in India at the most four years. This means that M. stayed at the court of Pātaliputra only for a few years. There is nothing to show whether he had learnt Sanskrit or any other Indian language like Pali.

We should not and cannot totally brush aside the Mud rārāksasa. Candragupta and Parvatuka, the Naudas and their elimination, Candragupta having employed foreign sol diers and gained large territories in North-West India and even to the West of the Indus river are accepted by almost all scholars. The drama also states that Raksasa, the former minister of the Nandas, was induced by Kautilya to accept the post of chief ininister under Candragupta and he himself retired from the political fielil. One has often to wonder at the ways of some Western scholars of the 20th century. They themselves show that Megasthenes reported matters as exist ing in India which were quite untrue. Dr. Jolly glosses over this in the following words (Intro. p. 38 ) ’the numerous and glariny discrepancies between Megasthenes and Kauṭi lys are no doubt to some extent due to the idealising tenden cies of the Greek writer.’ M. does not speak of the four varṇas, the most distingnishing characteristic of Indian Soci ety for several centuries before him, but speaks of seven cla sses in the Indian society of his times (fragment I. p. 40-44 of McCrindle’s tr., ed. of 1877 ). M. states that Indians keep no slaves, that agriculturists have a privileged position in that they are exempt from military service and are never to be molested even in times of war, that Indians never took me except at sacrifices, that Indians do not put out money interne

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

185

asury (Fragment XXVII B. McCrindle’s Tr. ), they have no suits about pledges and deposits ( Fragment XXVII C), that the Indians huve no written laws and are ignorant of writ ing ( Fragment XXVII ), that no private person was allowed to keep a horse or elephant. It is unnecessary to multiply examples. Dr. Jolly himself is constrained to observe (on p. 40 of Intro. ) as may be seen from these examples, the ideali sing tendency in Megasthenes greatly impairs the trustwor thiness of his statements. This is the view of a favourable critic about the positive statements made by M. Prof. A. B. Keith agrees with Dr. Jolly in this appraisal (B. C. Law Feli citation Vol. I. pp. 477–495). To describe the false reports he makes as due to his idealising tendency is a euphemistic way of saying that M. told lies, whatever his object might have been. If this is the state of things in the matter of his positive statements, how can any conclusion be drawn from his silence on this or that point or fact? Prof. A. B. Keith says that M. does not mention by name Kautilya or Canakya (p. 486 of his paper mentioned above) and insinuates that he was non-existent. As a matter of fact the fragments of M. hardly ever mention the name of any prominent Indian indivi dual at the Pātaliputra court or in the country, except that of Sandracottos (king Candragupta ). Keith admits this (p. 487 of the paper noted above). Therefore, non-mention of Kauṭi lya or Canakya by M, is worthless as an argument. How non-mention is often worthless as an argument may be illu strated by a striking example. Asoka in his numerous inscriptions nowhere mentions his great progenitor Candra gupta (grand–father of Asoka). But both are mentioned several hundred years later in the inscription (Junagad ) of Rudradāman (in 150 A. D.). Besides, it has been shown above that M. came to India during the last years of Candra gupta’s reign. If we accept the story of the Mudrārākṣasa, Kautilya or Canakya was connected only with the early years of Candragupta’s career. By the time M. came to India, Kautilya might have been living in a hermitage or might have been dead.

It is really surprising how even a veteran and studious scholar like Dr. Jolly cannot have the candidness to say that in view of the unanimous Indian traditions preserved in Sanskrit works (such as the Purāṇas, Nītisāra, Tantrākhy yikā, Mudrārākṣasa, Kādambari, Dasakumāracarita ) and ju

186

History of Dharmaścīstra

Jain and Buddhist literature, it is quite possible that Kautilya may have been a real person and might have had something to do with Candragupta. Not only does he not do this but proceeds to say it might indeed be questioned whether the prime minister of Sandrakottos is not a figure of pure mythology, as he is not mentioned in the Greek reports concerning Sandracottos and as Hemacandra relates very marvellous stories about him.’ The first part (about non-men tion by Megasthenes ) has been dealt with above. (pp. 183-4 ) Hemacandra flourished a thousand or more years after Kautilya and, if he gives marvellous stories, the task of the scholar is to separate the chaff from the the solid grains. Marvellous legends about prophets and great men have been told in all religious books, and socalled histories in all lands. Marvellous stories are told in the Pali Jātakas and other works about Gautama Buddha, but nobody denies the existence and mission of Buddha. Dr. Jolly further says that the minister Raksasa ( i. e. the peculiar name only, I hope ) is probably a myth, why should not Kautilya be mythical as well. A king requires a minister or ministers. The Nandas must have had a minister or ministers and one of them might have been dubbed Raksasa for various reasons. Supposing the name was wrongly given, there is nothing mythical about it. Rākṣasu occurs not only in the Mudrārākṣasa, but it also occurs in the Pañcatantra III ( verse 138 ) p. 65 of Būhler’s ed. of 1891 (kūtalekhyair-dhanotsargaiḥ-dūṣayet katru-pakṣajam i pradhānapurusam - yadvad - Viṣṇuguptena Rākṣasaḥ”). Dr. Jolly, after having written many things (generally one-sided ) becomes aware that it is the contents of the work that matter most and then begins to consider this in a slipshod way on pp. 34-41. On p. 43 Dr. Jolly reverts to the non-mention of Pātaliputra in the Arthaśāstra. As stated above, non-mention would have hardly any bearing on the question of the authorship of an extensive Arthaśāstra. Here also one matter for consideration is as follows: As said above, Kautilya was probably connected with the early career of Candragupta. He therefore wrote the Arthaśāstra for his king (Narendrārthe’ in II. 10). At first, his kingdom was not very large and was unsettled. Therefore, he composed long section on superintendents ( Adhyaksapracūra). Fram that section it appears that he was an experienced adminis trator and not a mere pandit, as Keith said in (JRAS, Maria 1916 at p. 135 ), as Winternitz is pleased to remark (in Cala

INSTAT

FOUN

19

14. The Arthuśāstra of Kautilya

187

Review 1924 p. 17) and as Dr. Jolly echoes this description (Intro. p. 47). Johnston in JRAS for 1929 p. 101 holds that Kautilya must have been an experienced and practical administrator.

Winternita (Cal. Review for April-June 1924 ) on p. 18 is sceptical about Kautilya’s anthorship of the Arthaśāstra chiefly on two grounds ; firstly, the words ‘iti’ Kautilyah’ occur about 80 times and therefore the reference is to a school and not to a single individual. Some Western writers often indulge in categorical statements about matters Indian on scanty data. We have the examples of Baudhāyana (1. of a Srauta and Dharmasītra ), Jaimini (author of Pūrvamimāṁsā sūtra ), Bādarāyane ( of the Vedāntasūtra ), Vātsyāyana (author of Kāmasūtra ) citing their own names in their works. Võtsyāyana is a gotra name. The famous poet Bāna speaks of his ancestor as ‘babbūva Vātsyāyana-gotrasambha vah’. The second ground is the same that Keith advanced in JRAS for 1916 p. 135 viz. that Kautilya means crookedness. How can an author call himself crookedness incarnate ? Vide Cal. Review 1924 p. 18. Here again a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Kinuṭilya is ugotra name. Winternitz appears to have known only one meaning of the word. Just as Bhāradvaja often mentioned in the Arthaśāstra is a gotra name, so is Kautilya (as shown on p. 91 of the first edition ) and as shown above from the grant of Bhaskaravarman of Kamarūpa in the first half of the 7th century A. D. in E. I. vol. 19 pp. 115-7 and 248-250, which only confirms his ancestor’s grant. Moreover, the Pravara-sūtra of Baudhayana Srautasūtra (Dr. Caland’s ed. ) includes Kautilya in the Yaska group of yotras ( vol. III p. 421). Besides, the Matsya purāṇa ( Ānan. ed. ) when dealing at length (in chapters 195-202) with gotras and pravaras mentions in chap. 195. 26 ) Kauṭili as & gotra name under Bhrguvaṁsa. Therefore, these grounds put forward by Keith and Winternitz are worth nothing.

Another example of easy-going attitudes and want of caution even among some veteran Sanskrit scholars of the West may be mentioned from Dr. Jolly’s Intro. to his editia of K. (p. 11). He refers to the fact that Medhātithi on Manu adduces two passages (on VII. 191 and 205 ) from a work spoken of by him as Samānatantra ( which can be traced to the Arthaśāstra X. 5, last verse and VI. 2. 7). Dr. Jolly is so

Rest

188

cocksure that he at once jumps to the conclusion that the Arthasāstra wus surnamed Samānatantra, does not even use the words ‘it is possible and refers in support of his dictum to the words ‘samānam pūrvena’, that occur several times in the Arthaśāstra; (vide e.g. I. 11. 10-12, XIV. 1. 26). All that those words mean is the rest need not be expressly stated but that some words or phrases already occurring in de previous sentence or part are to be understood as meant here also.’ Samānatantra is a technical term in the Nyāyasūtra I. 1. 27-3.1 and Vātsyāyana-bhāsya. Tantra means ‘siddhānta’ (tantram pradhāne siddhiinte’ as Amarakośa says) i. e. a system of thought or philosophy. A siddhānta may be one of four kinds, viz. (1) Sarvatantra, (2) Pratitantra-siddhānta e. g. certain doymas (such as Prakrti, Purusa in Sārkhya ) are common to Yoga i. e. to two systems (though in other matters they differ as the Yoga system does from Sarikhya) and are Samānatantra. The 3rd is ‘adhikaranasiddhānta’ and 4th is abhyupayama-siddhanta. The Manusmrti insists on Dharma ( spiritual and moral good ) as the principal matter (or goal) and treats artha ( material good or well-being ) and Kāmu (pleasures of sense ) as inferior and calls upon all to give up Artha and Kāma that are opposed to Dharma (Manu IV: 176). On the other hand the A. ( that is meant for the benefit of rulers (’narendrarthe’ as he says) emphatically states

· Artha alone is supreme, for Dharma and Kāma depend upon Artha’ ( I. 7. 6-7). Thus, though Manu and Arthaśāstra deal with many matters that are common to both, the principles and emphasis are different and hence Arthaśāstra may be call ed parallel to ( though not identical with ) Mauusmrti. It may be noted here that the verse Pradipah sarvavidyānām’ (Arthao I. 2. 12 ) is quoted by the Vatsyāyana-bhāsya (1.1) only changing the last pāda into vidyoddese prakīrtitā’.

Some Western scholars again and again harp on the point of non-mention as a valid ground for arriving at definite or positive conclusions. Winternitz (in Cal. Review 1924 ) could not avoid the temptation of pressing into service the non mention of Kautilya in the Mahābhārata (p. 28 ). In the Art place, Winternity does not state what date le assigns to the Mahābhārata. Besides, various replies can be given to this useless argument. The great Epic euds upon the note

RITURA

FOUNDED

14. The Arthuśīstra of Kuutilya

189

Dharma (as the quotations below will show 100 ) just like Manu’s exhortations above. Even if Kautilya flourished before the epic there is no compelling reason why the epic should mention a writer with whom it had a fundamental difference. Other possible replies are that Kautilya was a contemporary or flourished slightly later or earlier than the Mahābhārata as we have it.

If one were to write on Western Scholars’ frequent use of non-mention* of a person or work by other works or authors as a good reason for coming to positive or definite conclusions, ā volume would have to be written. But I must add one more glaring instance of this perverse tendency among certain Western writers (and the instance is very relevant here ). Dr. Jolly (Intro. to A. | 47 ) remarks ‘Patañjali in his Mahā bhāsya refers to the Mauryas and to the Sabhā of Candragupta but is silent about Kautilya’. The Mahābhāṣya is an exposi tion of the Vārtikas of Kātyāyana an:l indirectly of Pāṇini’s sūtras; it is quite wrong to suppose that it is a general work on Sanskrit authors and Literature or a thesaurus of all literary works in Sanskrit and the naines of their authors (up to Patañjali’s time). If soine historical facts are stated in the Mahābhāṣya they are relevant for the purpose of expla ining Panini’s sūtras and their application. To take first the reference to the Mauryas: It occurs in the Mahābhāṣya 170 on

169 ऊर्ध्वबाहुविरौम्येष न च कश्चिच्छृणोति माम् । धर्मादर्थश्व कामश्च स किमर्थ न

सेव्यते ॥ न जातु कामान भयान्न लोभाद्धर्म त्यजेज्जीवितस्यापि हेतोः। धर्मो नित्यः सुखदुःखे त्वनिये जीवो नित्यो हेतुरस्य त्वनित्यः ॥ स्वर्गारो. पर्व, 5. 62-63. The frequent reliance on 10n-inention by Jolly and Winternitz tempts me to refor to Prof. A. H. Sayce who rebukes the European sobolars and especially Germans for their fonduess for treating negative evidence as of great value in putting forward theories which broke down on further search ( vide on Aryan problem

fifty years later’ in Antiquity vol. XI 1927) p. 204. 170 The words of the Mahābhāṣya on Pāh. V. 3. 99 are ; 37902 ā

तत्रे न सिध्यति शिवः स्कन्दः विशाख इति । किं कारणम् । मौर्यैर्हिरण्यार्थि भिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिताः। भवेत्तासु न स्यात् । यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पूजार्धास्त्रास Hasala I ( Kielhorn’s ød. Vol. II. p. 429). Recuey does not aporte where (at lenst in the Arthaśāstra ) monn ‘gold’. It is sometna usod in the sense of coins or cash’. In tho Mahābhīsya passagd

(Continued on the next page )

.

.————-…—-

POOK

Bhandarkar

190

Pān. V. 3. 99 (Jivikārthe cāpanye). This says that the affix Kun ( ka ) is not applied to images of Gods that are meant to be sold, but that are installed for gaining livelihood; e. g. an image of Śiva is called Śiva if it is not meant for being sold but is established for affording a living to the Devalakas (priests of the idol); while if an image of Śiva be meant for sale, it would be designated Śivaka, but would not be applica ble to idols established by Maurya kings for collecting gold or cash (from the offerings placed before the images ). Besi des, the plural. Mauryaiḥ’is used. That is most important. There were vine or ten Maurya kings, who ruled in all for 137 years ( vide p. 171 above). Therefore, reference is not to Can dragupta at all but to his descendants after Asoka, the last of whom was ultimately liquidated by senāni Pusyamitra and whose doings Patañjali might have personally known or heard because he was very near in time. There is no occasion or necessity to bring in Kautilya here. Then a word must be said about Candraguptasabhā. On Vārtika 7 of Pān. I. 1. 68 (read with Pan. II. 4. 23 gabhā rājāmanusyapūrvā ), we get the neuter gender for the compounds ‘inasabham iśvarasa bham’, but we have Rājasa bhā (not rāja sabham ), Pusyami trasabhā and Caudraguptasabhā) (and not Candraguptasa bham &c.). Here the question is one of pure grammar. It may be noticed that Patañjali mentions the Sabhā of the founder of the Mauryas and also of the destroyer of that dynasty (viz. Pusyamitra). Asoka was the greatest of the Mauryas, but owing to his Buddhist proclivities he was probably persona non grata with Patañjali. Following the logic of Dr. Jolly, Asokasabhā not being mentioned in Patañjali it could have been argued that Asoka did not exist or at least there was no Aśokasabhā, His Inscriptions and Buddhist works

i

(Continued from the previous page ) means ‘cash or revenuo in cash’. For example, the Arthasāstra uses it in that sense e. g. in ‘धान्यषड्भागं पण्यदशभागं चास्य भागधेयं 99CP Aig: 11 I. 13. 6; eget feug CHEATRisa gafa’ 1. 19. 12; Bileturgauit: qTÁST: 299: 1 III. 16. 39 ; HETTETAGETESTETE TOU. सुवर्णसूक्ष्मवस्त्रादीनां स्थूलकद्रव्याणां द्विशतावरः पञ्चशतपरो मध्यमः साहस que: I III, 17, 9. In this last both hiranya and suvarṇa are use therefore suvarṇa means ‘gold’ and ‘biranya’ should not

coins or cash’.

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

191

vouch for his existence. Well then, the Purāṇas, Jain and Buddhist sources vouch for the existence of Kautilya and the A. itself proclaims that it is Kautilya’s work; besides, writers from the third century A. D. at least onwards mention him. Why should not all Western scholars agree on this probabi lity at least ? Many of the treat Kautilya as if he were in the dock and regard themselves as advocates for the prosecu tion and eager to condemn and annihilate him. I can gauge or surmise the motives of some at least of them. But it is not necessary for my purpose here to dwell on them.

A. B. Keith (in J. R. A. S. for 1916 pp. 130-137) states that it is perfectly possible that the Arthaśāstra is an early work and may be assigned to the 1st century B. C. while its material is older (1), 137 ). He, however, held that the verse

Yena sāstram ca sastram ca’ (at the end i. e. in XV. 1. 73 ) is unlike a statesman and very like the product of a follower who desired to extol his master. This is purely one man’s subjective idea about what a person should have done (who flourished two thousand years before him). Jacobi ( who assigns Kautilya to about 300 B. C. in I. A. Vol. 53 pp. 128 136 ) and others do not accept Keith’s remark at all. Keith (on p. 136 of JRAS for 1916 ) says that Kautilya means fal sehood. This is not accurate. Kuṭila means ‘bent or croo ked’ as the Amarakośa says and as the Vārtika ‘Anavanakau tilyayor-iti vaktavyam’ on Pan. I. 3. 66 and Patañjali indicates (Kielhorn’s ed. Vol. I. p. 290 ). In 1945, however, Keith appears to have changed even his first response to the publi cation of Kautilya’s work and published a paper (in B. C. Law Presentation Vol. I. pp. 477–196 ) remarkable for its acrid and supercilious tone, where he observes there is no trace of a commanding intellect in the actual work before us (p. 486 ) and that Arthaśāstra does not exhibit any qualities of the type of Frederick the great, Madhavācārya, Todarmal, Richelieu, Warren Hastings, Woodrow Wilson, Lenin and Churchill.’ Dr. Jolly also (Intro. p. 33 ) sings the same tune, when he writes this however appears to be certain that his work is the outcome of a long period of literary activity in the field of polity rather than the production of a creative genius, another reason for not fixing its age limit too high

Many scholars have contributed papers showing the indebtedness of Kūlidāsa, Bhavabhūti and others to the Arthaśāstra. For example, vide Kunhan Raja Felicitation192

Vol. pp. 48-54 and Proceedings of the 13th All India Oriental Conference, part 2 pp. 102-108 ( Dr. Raghavan ) for Kalidasa’s indebtedness to Kautilya). No scholar (except Dr. Pran Nath ) puts the Arthaśāstra later than the 3rd century A. D. and most scholars place Kalidasa between 350 to 450 A. D. Therefore, beyond serving to check or corroborate the text of A. such articles are not of importance in this section and so these matters need not be dwelt upon here.

From comparatively ancient times Cānakya alias Kautilya or Vinnugupta has been credited with the composi tion of a work on Arthashstra. The Kimandakiyanitishram pays a glowing tribute of praise to Viṣṇugupta, who, single handed, brought about the downfall of Nanda, bestowed the earth on Candragupta and distilled from the ocean of Artha śāstra the quintessence, his work on politics. Kāmandaka further tells us that he looked upon Viṣṇugupta as his guru.172 The Tantrākhyāyikā (H. O. S. vol. 14) which is certainly not later than 300 A. D. pays homage to Chnakya the Great as one of the authors of treatises on Politics. 179 Dandin in his Dasakumāracarita ( section VIII, p. 131, 2nd edition B. S. Series) says that the teacher Viṣṇugupta com. pressed Dandanīti for the sake of the Maurya king into six thousand slokas and quotes passages from Cīnakya.174 Bana associates the work of Kautilya with harsh and cruel expedients. The Pañcatantra identifies Cānakya and Viṣṇu gupta and speaks of Canakya as the author of Arthaśāstra

171 यस्याभिचारवज्रेण वज्रज्वलनतेजसः । पपात मूलतः श्रीमान् सुपर्वा नन्दपर्वतः ॥

एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या यः शक्त्या शक्तिधरोपमः । आजहार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुप्ताय मेदिनीम् ॥ नीतिशास्त्रामृतं धीमानर्थशास्त्रमहोदधेः । समुदधे नमस्तस्मै विष्णु

गुप्ताय वेधसे ॥ काम. I. 4-6. 172 ‘विद्याश्चतस्र एवैता इति नो गुरुदर्शनम् ।’ काम. II. 6 ; ‘चतस्र एव

विद्या इति कौटिल्यः’ कौटिलीय I. 2.

मनवे वाचस्पतये शुक्राय पराशराय ससुताय । चाणक्याय च महते नमोस्तु

नृपशास्त्रकर्तृभ्यः ॥ verse 2. 174 ‘इयमिदानीमाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन मौर्यार्थे षड्भिः श्लोकसहस्रैः संक्षिप्ता ।’ दश

कुमार. VIII ; सत्यमाह चाणक्यः ‘चित्तज्ञानानुवर्तिनोऽना अपि शियाने स्युः । दक्षिणा अपि तद्भावबहिष्कृता द्वेष्या भवेयुः’ दशकुमार VIII. Compire कौदिलीय v. 4 verses at the end.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917 .

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

193

(vide part I. p. 2 ed. by Kielhorn, part II. p. 65 and part III. 50 ed. by Būhler). Kautilya figures very largely in the Purāṇas (vide Pargiter’s Dynasties of the Kali age’ pp. 69-70 and Viṣṇupurāṇa 4. 24. 26-28 ). He has a prominent place in the Bṛbatkathā of Gunādhya as appears from the works of Kṣemendra and Somadeva. The Mìchhakatika (I. 39, B. S. series ) refers to Cānakya. The Mudrārāksasa identifies Cānakya and Kautilya and suggests the derivation of the latter name from Kutila’(crooked ). Some of the above items of information are supported by the personal references contained in the Arthaśāstra itself. At the end of the first adhikaraña Kautilya is said to be the author of the Sāstra and at the end of the 10th chapter of the second adhikarana Kautilya is said to have laid down the rules for royal edicts for the sake of the king. 175 The last verse170 tells us that he, who impatiently wrested the earth from the Nanrla king, composed the work and after the colophon a verse tell us that, seeing the differing interpretations of bhāsyakāras on the Arthaśāstra, Viṣṇu gupta himself composed the sūtra and the bhāsya.

Kautilya gives his own definition of Arthaśāstra in Adhikarana XV. 1. It means ‘means of the subsistence of men are artha ( wealth ) i. e. the earth (land ) inhabited by men.’ The science which is the means of gaining and pro tecting that earth is the science of Artha (Politics ) (Manu syāṇām vsttir-arthah manusyavatī bhumirityarthah ; tasyāh pṛthivyā lābhapālanopāyah sāstram-arthaśāstram-iti ). The Kauṭiliya appears to employ the word Nītiśāstra in the sense of Arthaśāstra in V. 4. 3 (anātmavān hi nītiśāstradvesād anarthyasamyogadva prāpyāpi mahad-aiśvaryam na bhavati. The very first sentence of the Arthaśāstra foreshadows the definition of the term in XV. 1 viz. ’this single ( treatise ) on the science of Politics has been composed mostly by bringing together (the dicta of ) as many treatises on the science of

175 सुखग्रहणविज्ञयं तत्वार्थपदनिश्चितम् । कौटिल्येन कृतं शास्त्रं विमुक्तग्रन्थविस्तरम् ॥

कौटिलीय I. 1 ; सर्वशास्त्राण्यनुक्रम्य प्रयोगमुपलभ्य च । कौटिल्येन नरेन्द्रार्थे

Tip Pater: : 11 EMTT II, 10. 176 ta ETTES RTE 27 75777518T T H spargui gatului de ETTEVE

कृतम् ॥ दृष्ट्वा विप्रतिपत्तिं बहुधा शास्त्रेषु भाष्यकाराणाम् । स्वयमेव विष्णुगुप्तत कार सूत्रं च भाष्यं च ॥ 1. D.-25

Nasi

Bhanda Resea

194

politics as have been composed (established ) by former teachers for the acquisition and protection of the earth’.

The first question that arises for consideration is the authenticity of the work, that is, the question whether it can be the work of the famous ininister of Candragupta Maurya, who was a contemporary of Alexander, and who must there fore have flourished about 320 B. C. This question very larg ely depends upon the age of the work. But other considera tions, more or less of a subjective character and depending upon the absence of certain things from the Kauṭiliya, must be dealt with first. Jolly, Keith and Winternitz hold that the extant Kauṭiliya is not the work of the Maurya minister. One argument, viz. that a person like Cīṇakya who had to build a vast empire such as that of Candragupta and who was bent down with the cares of the empire could not have found time to write such a work, may be brushed aside as entirely futile, being a purely subjective argument. Soine persons may say that he could have found time, just as Sāyana and Mādhava could find in later days, to write such a work in tbe midst of all cares, while others may deny the possibility of such a thing. Similarly, most of the arguments from the silence of the Kautiliya are also quite unconvincing and lead to no certain and universally acceptable conclusion. The non-mention of Pāṭaliputra or of the empire of Candragupta is of very little use in deciding the question of the authenticity of the work. The argument of Stein and Winternitz that in Megasthenes’ account of India no great person named Cānakya or Kautilya appears and that the former’s account of the condition of India does not tally with that presented by the Kautiliya is of very little weight. We have no means for finding what proficiency Megasthenes had acquired in the languages of India so as to be able to hold conversation with all sorts and conditions of men. Besides, it is well known that Megasthenes’ writings have been handed down in a fragmentary state and that he often spins his own yarns. Megasthenes declares the Indians to be unacquainted with writing. But no Western scholar would now subscribe to the view that writing was unknown in India about 320 B. C. Dr. Jolly himself has to remark that the idealising tendency in Megasthenes greatly impairs the trustworthiness of his statements (p. 40, Introduction to Kanṭiliya). This question of the authenticity of the working bound up with the question whether it can be the work of an individual author or whether it is the product of a sabrusy

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kuuṭilya

195

Hillebrandt vehemently argues that it is the product of a school and Jacobi as vehemently repudiates that hypothesis. The great stumbling block according to many scholars in the way of regarding Kautilya as the author of the work is the fact that the views of Kautilya are cited by name about 80 times in the work itself, almost always in opposition to the views of other teachers. But there is nothing specially to be wondered at in this. In order to avoid looking too egoistic, ancient authors generally put their own views in the third person as said by early writers like Medhātithi and Viśva rūpa.177 It has to be admitted that the first person singular also is used by ancient writers, though rarely. 178 Jacobi (I. A. for 1918 p. 188 ) and Keith are both wrong in thinking that the view of Rautilya is criticized by Bhāradvāja in V. 6. Kautilya states his position first and then mentions the view of a predecessor.179 Dr. Jolly (Intro. to Kautilya p. 44 ) is wrong in his explanation of Apadesa (in XV. 21 ).180 That word is applied to passages which mean ’this or that author says this or that’and the Kauṭiliya cites froin his own work a case of the statement of varions views on a certain point. These words do not at all indicate that according to the Arthaśāstra Kautilya was a stranger. Apadeśa is one of the 32 tantrayuktis ( devices or patterns of the tantra i. e. the system propounded in the work). It should be noticed that all the 32 tantrayuktis are exemplified from the Kauṭiliya itself and in illustrating the word ‘apadeśa’ in Adhikarana 15 the author quotes an example (out of many in the work itself from its first adhikarana. Apadeśa seems to mean ’ a statement or declaration.’ The word Apadesa occurs also in IV. 8. 2. The words of Dr. Jolly (Intro. p. 44 ) are rather misleading. He says ’the numerous references to opinions of K. in the body of the work are in the Tantrayukti chapter explained as coming under the head of A padeśa’. K. is exem

177 APTU FYERT: “H azraata gad’ unaiet; on 115. 1. 2 feres

‘q says ‘fe a poreda preneheart Farerad 1973TRUTTI. 178 1ff says ‘ala FATHIA…ATTHTHA PATA VII. 13 ; vide 118.

I. 56 (THA HD TEHTI &c. ) and II. 133. 179 एवमेकैश्वर्यममात्यः कारयेदिति कौटिल्यः । नैवमिति भारद्वाजः । 180° gamerica: 1 Hafta STEYTTART Fatara hraat: ERTE

• TEFTAT: ferfafazitaraar, qera Ara ailen: ‘sfa.

196

plifying the various devices ( yuktis ) that have to be emplo. yed in expounding his system. The three opinions including his own have already been stated. There are many examples of apadeśc in the work apart from the one mentioned in XV (as on I. 8, I. 17. 4-22, II. 7. 11-15, VIII, 1, VIII. 3). Keith thinks (J. R. A. S. 1916 p. 135) that as Kautilya is derived from Kutila, an author will not cite his own views under such an epithet. It is not unlikely that Canakya acquired the epithet Kautilya on account of his methods in dealing with the Nandas and that as he did so from no purely selfish motives but for ridding the country of such tyrants as the Nandas are represented to have been, he might have come to relish the name given to him by the people. It has to be noted in this connection that many of the writers quoted in the Kauṭiliya bear nicknames (such as Piśuna, Vāta vyādhi, Kaunapadanta ). This leads to the question as to whether the name is Kautilya or Kautalya. Hillebraudt seems to imply that all mss. employ the first form, while Pandit T. Ganapatisastri says his mss. support the latter form though in the first few pages he prints Kautilya. Mss. of the Kādam bari, the Pañcatantra and other works support the form Kautilya and the Mudrārākṣaga does the same by pointedly hinting at the etymology. A com. on the Kimandakiyani tisāra styles the Kauṭiliya as Kutalabhāsya and Kutala is said to be a gotra. The form Kautalya is said to occur in an insc ription at Ganesar in Dholka dated Vikrama Samvat 1291 (i. e. 1234-35 A. D.). Vide Indian Historical Quarterly vol. I. p. 786. It is very difficult to decide between the rival claims of the two forms, but it appears that the form of the name, Kautalya, is due to a later attempt to solve the diffi culty of an author parading his views as those of a man picknamed “crooked.” Whether Kutala or Kautalya was known as a gotra rși in ancient times is extremely doubtful. Neither the Asvalāyana-srauta-sūtra (Uttarsaṭka, 6th chap., 10th Kandika ) nor the Apastamba-srauta-sūtra (24. 5-10 ) mentions Kutala among the several gotra groups. In later works on gotras, we find the name in several forms. In the Pravaradarpaṇa of Kamalūkara Kautali is said to be one of the Jāmadagnya-Vatsa group of the Bhrgus (p. 156 edited by P. Chentsalrao, Mysore ) and Kautilya is assigned to the Yaska group of the Bhrgus ( p. 158). The Pravaramajani enumerates the Kautilyas (p. 32, of the edition by P. Chentsatu

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

197

rao, Mysore) among the Yaska group of the Bhrgus, also among the Saradvanta group of the Gautamas, a branch of the Angirasas (p. 161) and Kautili as one of the Bhrgus (p. 42).

In connection with the Arthasāstra of K. the following questions arise ( and arguments on them become mixed up ). I. Was there a person called Kautilya or Canakya, who helped king Candragupta and was his minister; II. Did he write a work on Polity; III, Was the work in prose or verse or both; IV. Is the extant Arthaśāstra substantially the same work that was originally written by Cānakya or Kautilya ; V. Is Viṣṇugupta mentioned in a verse occurring at the end in some mss. the same as Kautilya or Cīnakya or different.

The preceding pages contain answers to some of these questions. On the available evidence there is hardly any doubt that Kautilya and Canakya are names of the same person and that he helped Candragupta in the early part of his career (reply to question I ); Kautilya or Canakya was the author of the extant Arthaśāstra as stated in the work itself and in the Tantrākhyāyiks, Kādambari and Daśakumaracarita (reply to question II ). The work was in prose with a verse or verses at the end of each chapter and sometimes in the middle also. This will be elaborated a little later ( reply to question III ). The extant work is substantially the same as originally written, but it is likely that some matter was interpolated later. Some portions dropped out owing to its unpopularity ( evidenced by Bāna ) and the great lack of mys. of the work ; same possible interpolations lave been pointed out in several places ( reply to Question IV); Vinnugupta is the name given at Nāmakaraṣıı and Viṣṇugupta, Cinakya and Kautilya are the names of the same person (reply to V). It has been shown that the Nitisāra ascribes the work to Viṣṇugupta, the Tantrākhyāyikā speaks of Canakya as the author of a nipa sāstru, the Kādambarī ascribes the Sāstra to Kautilya, the Dasakumāracarita identities Viṣṇugupita und Canakya and the Mudrārāksasa gives the three names as those of the same person.

The Puranas are mainly concerned with the periodic creation and destruction of the world, the royal dynastiesynd their doings (i. e. with history ) and holy places, penances, vratas, contents of the Vedas, their auxiliary lores i Vedāngas ), the composition and number of the Purāṇasand

Pook.

1917

198

Dharmaśāstra matters ( and much of this in a prophetic vein ) and they hardly ever refer to secular works except in compara tively later Purāṇas. There is no wonder, therefore, that even when some of them refer to Kautilya as instrumental in uprooting the Nandas and placing a strong and capable ruler like Candragupta on the Magadha throne ( that is history, Vamsa and Vamśānucarita ), they are generally silent about the names and authors of secular works like the Artha sāstra and the works of poets and dramatists like Bhāsa and Kālidāsa.

Before proceding to discuss the age of the Kauṭiliya, it is advisable to say a few words on the form, style and contents of the work. The work is divided into 15 adhikaranas, 150 chapters, 180 topics and contains 6000 slokas (i. e. units of 32 letters ). The work is in prose interspersed with a few verses. Each chapter has at the end at least one verse and sometimes more; for example, at the end of VII. 3 there are 15 verses, 14 at the end of VII. 18, 12 at the end of VIII. 5,8 at the end of VII. 6 and VII. 13. Even in the middle of some chapters occur some verses, excluding mantras e. g. in I. 8 (one), I. 15 ( 2 ), II. 10 (12), II. 24 (5), V. 6 (1), VII. 5 (9), VII. 6 (1), VII. 13(2), X. 3(2), XIII. 4 (1), XIV. 2 ( ). There are about 375 verses in all (excluding mantras, but including some obvious quotations ). Almost all verses are in the Anustubh metre; there are 2 classical Upajātis in II. 9 (32-33), 5 Upajūtis iu II. 10, one Puspitāgrā in II. 12 (10); in all eight verses that are not Anusṭubh. Some scholars are inclined to regard the chapter on Sāsanas as a later interpola tion, principally on the ground of the number of verses in it that are not Avustubhs. This is wrong. It we look to the Mahābhāṣya that quotes Kārikūs and verses in metres other than Anustubh, we shall have to hold that long before 150 B.C. (the generally accepted date of the Mahābhāṣya) many classical metres had been developed; for example, kārikaīs in Āryā metre (on Pan. I. 1. 57 and on I. 2. 51, on Pān. VI. 1. 77 and VII. 1. 78 there are Kārikās in Indravajrā, on 1. 4. 109 there is Vidyun mālā, there is Vasantatilaka on Vārtika I on Pan. III. 2. 26 :( Kielhorn’s ed. Vol. II. p. 102 ), there is a Rucirā on p. 409 vol. III. There are such quotations as asidvitiyos nusasāra Pāndavam’ ( Kielhorn vol. I. p. 426 on II. 2. 2 which is a Vam usthapada. The largest number of venter occurs in Adhikarana VII (89 verses ), then come AdhikarAfrika

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kuutilya

199

II ( 71 verses) and Adhikarana I (with 46 ). The smallest Adhikarana is XI (with less than three printed pages and has only one verse) and the longest Adhikarana is the second dealing with Adhyaksapracāra and covering nearly one-fourth of the whole work. In the absence of early works on Arthaśāstra prior to Kautilya it is almost impossible to say. how many of the verses in K. are borrowed or how many are his own composition. There can be no doubt that some of these verses are his own composition e. g. the two verses (16-17) at the end of I. 10, where respectively the views of the ācāryas and of Kautilya (iti Kautilya-darśanam ) are set forth must he held to be his own. It may be said that some verses are quotations. For example, the verse ’nāsya guhyam pare’ at end of 1. 15, connected with his own word (kurvatasca’) in the last sentence, is a quotation. But a difficulty arises that this verse is almost the same as Manu VII. 105 and similar to Santi 140-24. Similarly, the verse ‘Samvatsarena patati &c.’ (Arthu. IV. 7. 28 ) is almost the same as Sānti 165. 37, Manu XI, 180, Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 62, Vasistha I. 22 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35. 3-5 first half). In this case it is difficult to say who borrows from whom, but it is probable that Kauṭilya borrowed from Santiparva or Baud. A half verse181 in A. III. 14. 27 (anāhitāgnih satagur-ayajvā oa sahasraguh) is found in Manu XI. 14, Sāntiparva 165. 9 and in Gaut. Dh. S. 18. 26-27 ), all three in another connec tion ). A. III. 7.1-2 (in prose) have almost the same idea and words as Manu 8. 332.183 It is noteworthy that they

181 Rancanegg: 1 EEETTTTTUATI I oil. T. XVIII. 26–27 ;

योऽनाहिताभिः शतगुरयज्वा च सहस्रगुः । तयोरपि कुटुम्बाभ्यामाहरेद TERET II XI. 14 and Tifata 163. 9.

The gist of all those passages in that, in the cae of as brāhmana’a daughtor’s marriage or in case le bas bogun some roligious rite and bis means fall short, be may take (without payment) as much as is required for the purpose in hand (and not moro ) from a rich sūdra or oven from a person of anothor varla who has, though possessed of a hundred cows, not consecrated the sacred Vedic firos or who has not performed a somit sacrifice thought owning a thousand cows. A. oploys this in another connection (on dāsakarmaknra-kalpa ) in,

III, 14. 37-38. 182 स्यात्साहसमन्वयवत्प्रसभं कर्म यत्कृतम् । निरन्वयं भवेत् स्तेयं हृत्वापव्ययतेन

ya 11 7. 8. 332 ; compare m. III. 17. 1-2 HEHH-2496 Hit निरन्वये स्तेयम्, अपव्ययने च ।

Bhanda

200

are introduced with the words ‘apiha ślaukau bhavatah’ and follow a quotation from or summary of a Vedic passage. Twelve verses in VII. 9 are introduced with the words ’tatrai tad bhavati’and may be quotations. A few of the verses bear a close resemblance to verses of other works; e. g. the verse

pṛstaḥ priyahitam brīyāt’ (in V. 4 ) which is very similar to Manu. 4. 138. In some cases he connects verses with his own words, e. g. the words ‘kurvatasca’ with ’nāsya guh yam’ (at the end of I. 15 ) and the last verse of II. 25. The style of the Kautiliya is simple and direct. It is not concise like that of the Vedānta or Vyakarana sūtras. It resembles the dharmasūtras of Gautama, Hārita and Sarkha-Likhita, but is not an archaic as that of Apastamba. According to the commentaries the several headings of the prakaranas are sutras and the contents of them the bhāsya ( vide Nayacandrikā pp. 137, 143-44 &c., erlited hy Dr. Jolly ). It abounds in numerous technical and rare terms. It is generally in accordance with Panini’s grammar, though such un-Pāninean words as pāpiṣthatama’ (in VII, 11 ) rarely occur. It employs the word ‘avyaya’ in the masculine (II. 10. 19 ), while Pāṇini ( I. 1. 37 employs ‘avyayam’.

A. employs such gerunds as ’nistūrayitva’ in IV. 12. 38, pravāsayitvā’in XII. 4.4 and abhimantrayitvā’ in XIV. 3.45.

The whole work on account of its careful arrangement of topics and unity of design impresses one as the product of a single brilliant mind. Like a modern work it gives an exhaus tive table of contents, divides the work into fifteen Adhikar ṇas, these into chapters and prakaranas and often refers to its own remarks in a preceding or following chapter e. g. in I. 12. 17 K. refers to spies spoken of in Kantakasodhana (i. e. in IV 4. 3 ), in VII. 3. 6. ( ābaliyasam vā yogam-ātiṣthet ) he refers to Adhikarana XII. which is labelled · Ābaliyasam ‘; On XIII. 1. 14 (tena parapakṣam-utsāhayet-yathoktam purastāt ) he refers to I. 14. 6 ff; in XII. 2. 8-9 (yathā sanghavștte ca vyakhy@tam, yogavāmane ca yaduktam, atmaraksitake &c. ) be refers to XI. 1, XIII. 2 and I. 21 respectively. The 15th Adhikarana (on Tantrayuktis ) contains 32 references to previous passages. The Kauṭiliya sheds such valuable light on the social, economic, political and religious life of antrent

14. The Arthaśāstru of Kautilya

201

II

India and contains iuformation on so many topics that it is not possible to convey any idea of its contents in a brief summary.

The subjects of the fifteen achikaranıcs are:- I. the discipline of the king, sciences to be learnt hy him, the place of Anviksiki and politics, qualifications of ministers and purohitu and their temptations, the institution of spies, council meetings, ambassadors, protection of princes, duties towards harem, king’s personal safety; ll. about superintendents of vārious State departments, founding villages, pastures and forests, forts, duties of the chamberlain ( sannidhātā), the cominissioner for revenues from forty, country, mines, roads &c.; accountant-general’s office; embezzlement of public funds; royal edicts; examination of precious stones for the treasury and mines; superintendent of gold (i.e. of coins issued from the mints ); superintendent of store-house ( of agricultural produce &c. ), of commerce, of forests, of arms, of weights and mea sures, of tolls, of weaving, of liquor houses, of slaughter houses, of prostitutes, of shipping, of cows and horses, of the capital and cities; III. Administration of justice, rules of procedure, forms of marriage, duties of married couples, stridhana, twelve kinds of sons; other titles of law; IV. removal of thorns, protection of artisans, merchants, remedies against national calamities such as fires, floods, pestilence, famines, demons, tigers, snakes etc.; suppression of those who live by foul means; detection of juvenile crime; arrest of criminals on suspicion, accidental or violent deaths, torture to extort confessions; protection of all kinds of State departments; fines in lieu of cutting off of limbs, sentence of death with or without torture, intercourse with maidens; punislunent of fine for various wrongs; V. conduct of courtiers, awarid of punishment for treason, replenishing of treasury in case of emergency; salaries of State servants, qualifications of courtiers, consolidation of royal power ; VI. constitution of the mandalit, seven elements of sover eignty, qualities of king, peace and arduous’ work as the source of prosperity; sixfold royal policy ; threefold salti ; VII. circle of States is the field for the employment of the six lines of policy; the six gunas (sandhi, war, neutrality, march ing, taking shelter and dvaidhīblīva ); causes leading to the dwindling and disloyalty of armies; combination of States sandhi for the acquisition of a friend, gold or land; an enemyli” the rear; recouping of lost strength; a neutral king and a cirdlem202

of States; VIII. about vyasanas ( vices and misfortunes ) of the several elements of sovereignty; troubles of the king and the kingdom; troubles of men and of the army; IX. work of an invader, proper time for invasion, recruitment of the army, accoutrements, internal and external trouble, disaffection; traitors, enemies and their allies ; X. about war; encamping the army, march of the army, battle-fields, work of infantry, cavalry, elephants &c., array of troops for battle in various formations; XI. concerning corporations and guilds ; XII. Abaliyagam ( concerning the attitude or conduct of the weaker king) ; 183 XII. concerning a powerful enemy; sending an envoy, intrigues, spies with weapons, fire and poison and destruction of stores and granaries ; capture of the enemy by stratagems; final victory; XIII. capture of forts ; sowing dissensions ; enticing of king by strategem ; spies in a siege; restoring peace in a conquered country ; XIV. secret means, strategems for killing an enemy, producing illusive appearances, medicines and incantations; XV division of this work into sections and their illustrations.

It would be interesting to say a few words separately on the chapter about judicial administration. Dr. Jolly has collected together the passages of the Kauṭiliya on judicial administrtion that bear a very close resemblance to the several works on ancient Indian Law (vide Z. 1). M. G. vol. 67, pp. 51-90). It will be seen there from that there is the greatest correspondence between the Kauṭiliya and Yajñavalkya. It is

183

3778 - must be treated as one word and pot as two ( 371

ARTA); Samich would mean Weaker’, hore a Weaker king’; arang would literally mean a chapter or work or practico concerning a weaker king’. It should be noticed that there are indications in the A. itself that we must tak. ‘status as ono word. For example, in VII. 3. 36 we have 31 Tactata: puffet Palett F : ( these three kinds of treaties by the woak king should be entered into as practices for the weakor king’. The termination 3 is added here to 317 TUE as one word. If we road as a aman, there are two difficulties ; firstly, if 31T is a moro preposition we would require आ बलीयांसम् (if mas.) or आ बलीयः (if noutor ). Besides, Pāṇ. IV. 3. 66 shows that all is used to the songe of Art anlegra sfa’ and word meang ‘a work that plaint how to become strong’. Vide Pān. IV. 3. 37.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

208

no doubt true that many passages from Manu and Nārada agree closely with those of the Kauṭiliya but not to the same extent as those of Yājñavalkya. A few striking examples are quoted below. 184 The question then arises whether there is borrowing and if so who the borrower is. The agreement in phraseology is so close that it must be regarded as a case of borrowing and in my opinion it is the Yājñavalkyasmṛti that borrows. The reasons are many. Yājžavalkya represents on numerous points of law a very great advance upon the doctrines of Kautilya. Kautilya does not contain distinct directions upon the four stages of a law suit (plaint, reply, proof and judgment) nor upon the threefold aspects of proof (documents, witnesses, prescription ). Yājñavalkya goes into all these matters. The Kautilīya does uot recognise the widow or mother as heir to a sonless man; Yājṅavalkya does 80. Kautilya does not mention the bandhus as heirs; he hardly says anything about re-union.185 The Kautiliya divides the stri dhana of a woman dying during her husband’s lifetime among her sons and daughters, while Yāj. prefers the daughters to the song.188 Kautilya differs from all Dharmaśāstra authors (including Yāj. ) in allowing a divorce on account of mutual hatred between husband and wife (III. 3. 16 ‘parasparam

184 (3) अभियुक्तो न प्रत्यभियुञ्जीत अन्यत्र कलहसाहससार्थसमवायेभ्यः । न चाभि

युक्तेऽभियोगोस्ति । कौ. III. 1-26 ; अभियोगमनिस्तीर्य नैनं प्रत्यभियोजयेत् । कुर्यात्प्रत्याभियोगं च कलहे साहसेषु च ॥ याज्ञ. II. 9-10 ; (b) प्रतिरोधकव्या धिदुर्भिक्षभयप्रतीकारे धर्मकार्ये च पत्युः । कौ. III. 2-163; दुर्भिक्षे धर्मकार्ये च व्याधौ संप्रतिरोधके । गृहीतं स्त्रीधनं भर्ता न स्त्रियै दातुमर्हति ॥ याज्ञ. 11 147 ; ( C ) सोदर्याणामनेकपितृकाणां पितृतो दायविभागः । कौ. III. 5. 143;

अनेकपितृकाणां तु पितृतो भागकल्पना । याज्ञ. II. 120. (d) नष्टापहृतमासाद्य स्वामी धर्मस्थेन ग्राहयेत् । देशकालातिपत्तौ वा स्वयं गृही.

त्वोपहरेत् । कौ. III. 16 ; नष्टापहृतमासाद्य हर्तारं ग्राहयेन्नरम् । देशकालातिपत्ती च गृहीत्वा स्वयमर्पयेत् ॥ याज्ञ. II. 160 ; ( 8 ) वानप्रस्थयतिब्रह्मचारिणामाचार्य शिष्यधर्मभ्रातृसमानतीर्थ्या रिक्थभाजः। कौ. III. 18; वानप्रस्थयतिब्रह्मचारिणी

रिक्थभागिनः । क्रमेणाचार्यसच्छिष्यधर्मभ्रात्रैकतीर्थिनः ॥ याज्ञ. II. 137. 185_But see ‘अपितृद्रव्या विभक्तपितृद्रव्याः सह जीवन्तः पुनर्विभजेरन् ’ को…

III. 5. 7. This contains a reference to reunion. 186 जीवति भर्तरि मृतायाः पुत्रा दुहितरश्च स्त्रीधनं विभजेरन् । अपुत्राया दुहितरता

तदभावे भर्ता । कौ. III. 2. 36; अप्रजःस्त्रीधनं भर्तुाह्मादिषु चतुर्वपि। दुहित प्रसूता चेच्छेवेषु पितृगामि तत् ॥ याज्ञ. II. 145.

Bhandar

204

History of Dhurmaśāstra

dveṣīn-muksaḥ). Kautilya ignores the widow or mother of a person as an heir, while Ynj. II, 135 recognises them as heirs if one dies without a son or daughter and the extant Manu smrti also prescribes that the mother of a person dying child less would succeed as heir to him and if the mother also be dead the father’s mother would inherit (IX. 217). It is not necessary to multiply exainples. It goes without saying that Yājña valkya represents a far too advanced stage of juristic principles than the Kauṭiliya and so must be later than the latter by several centuries. The Kauṭiliya agrees very closely with Manu also, but considerations of space prevent me from going into the points of agreement. There are however numerous fundamental points on which Manu aud the Kauṭiliya disagree.

Kautilya allows niyogu even in the case of Brāhmanas (last verse of III. 6 and at the end of I. 17 about kings ). Manu first speaks of Niyou and then condemns it ( vide 9. 57-63 and 9. 64-68 ). As Brhaspati refers to this fact in Manu’s work,187 it appears that the passages condemning. niyorja were put in probably earlier than the first centuries : of the Christian era. Though Kautilya speaks of almost the same 18 titles as those in Manu (8.4-7) almost under the same names, there is a slight difference. Manu has no such title ds Prakirnuku. Kautilya speaks of upanidhi and extends the same rules to Niksepu, while Manu speaks of the title as Nikpepa. The ancient dharma-sūtras do not give the technical names of the eighteen titles of law, though some of them do occur therein. Vāk pāruṣya and Dangapūrusya occur in G. Dh. S. (12. 1 ) und Vas. ( 17. 61 ). Baud. seems to have known the term ‘Strisajigrahana’ ( Dh. S. II. 2. 54 ); steya occurs in all. Gautama speaks of nidhi (Dh. S. 12. 39). Manu positively says ( 9. 155 ) that the son of any member of the first three varnies from a Sūdra woman does not inherit his father’s wealth (though the preceding verses 151-154 seem to lay down different rules ), while Kautilya allows such a son a share when there are sons born to a Brahmana from wives of higher castes or one third when he has no other sons (III. 6. 22). Manu expressly mentions the mother and paternal: grandmother is heirs (9. 217 ), while Kautilya appears to

187

hafifa’s words nro ‘Jah Aini Abar Aranzagha ‘; vito

ou 2 9.68 for tho wholo quotation. ,

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

205

iguore them. Manu prohibits the remarriage of widows (V. 1.61-165 ), while Kautilya allows not only widows to remarry, but also wives whose husbands have not been heard of for a year or more according to circumstances (III. 4. 37-38 ). Kautilya allows a wife to desert her husband, if the latter is of a bad character, has become a traitor to the king, endangers her life or has become an outcaste or impotent188 ( last verse of III. 2). Kautilya further seems to have allowed divorce which is unknown to any other known lawgiver, but he bases it only on the ground of mutual hatred and says that a marriage in the approved forms cannot be dissolved 180 (III. 3. 19). Mapu is very harsh upon gam blers and asks the king to suppress gambling and banish gamblers (9. 221-224 ), while Kuuṭilya only brings gam bling under the control of the King for the purpose of detecting thieves &c. (III. 20.2 ). Munu first allows Brah inana to inarry even i Sūra woman and then condemos such a thing (III. 13-19), while Kautilya does not condemn such upions. These divergences and others lead us to conclude that the Kauṭiliya is much older than the extant Manusmrti, which is in many matters carried away by puritanic zeal, while its older portion is nore in harmony with the spirit of the Kauṭiliya Therefore, the Kauṭiliya is long anterior to the time when the extant Manusiśti took its present form. The Kauṭiliya refers to the opinion of the Mānavas in five places. Two of the views ascribed to the Mānavas by Kauti liya are the same as those which Kūmaudaka (II. 3 and XI. 67 ) ascribes to Manu. According to the Mānavas, the vidyās to be studied by a prince were three, viz. trayī, vārtā and dandunīti, what is called anviksiki being but a branch of trayi; and the council of ministers was to consist of twelve. The Manusmști (7. 43 ) appears to regard the vidyās as four und lays down (7.54 ) that the Council should consist of deyen or eight sucivas. Būhler und others on account of this difference in the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmrti thought that kuuṭilya was referring to the Māna vadharma sutra. In my humble opinion the evidence for the existence

188 नीचत्वं परदेशं वा प्रस्थितो राजकिल्बिषी । प्राणाभिहन्ता पतितस्त्याज्यः लोबोपि,

ar afa: il sito III. 2. 48. 189 अमोक्ष्या भर्तुरकामस्य द्विषती भार्या । भार्यायाश्च भर्ता। परस्पर द्वेषान्मोक्षः

ng panierafu fatto III. 3, 15, 16, 18,

206

TIMO 1 VUGDI

of a Mānavadharmasutra is p

as detailed above in section 13. From the references to Svāyambhuva Manu and Prācetasa Manu contained in the Mahābhārata, parti cularly in the Sānti and Anuśāsana parvans it appears that there were two works in verse on dharma, and politics attri buted to these two or there was one work containing both. These works were subsequently recast as the Manusmrti. It is therefore that some difference is noticed between the views ascribed to the Māravas and the extant Manusmrti. Besides, there is no real conflict in the matter of villyās. The Manusmrti does not positively say that the vidyas are four and not three; it simply says from whom truyi and the other three are to be learnt (VII. 43). The Manusmrti (in 7. 60 ) allows more ministers than seven or eight. It is possible that in recasting several changes were made. The third opinion of the Mānavas quoted by Kautilya is about the fine to be imposed upon officers of the State occasioning loss of revenue (II. 7). The other two views of the Mūnavas quoted are concerned with the fine to be imposed on false witnesses and for forcible seizure of jewels:00 &c. It must be admitted that in the extant Manusmrti there is nothing exactly correspon ding with these views. But from this fact no one conclusion alone can be drawn. There may be a mistake in quoting, or there may be interpolations, it may be that some of the verses in the original Manusmrti have dropped out or that the Kautilya is quoting not the Manusmrti itself, but the views of works based on or explanatory of Manu. It is noteworthy that Bșhaspatill contains a verse very similar to the views on the Bāhasa attributed to the Mānavas. We shall see below that Bșhaspati’s work was more or less a supplement of Manu. The only authors or schools, besides the Mānavas, cited by name in the dharmasthiya section are the Bārhaspatyas and the Auśanasas. It is remarkable that the well-known and ancient Dharmasūtrakāras like Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhāyana, Vasiṣtha, Hārīta are nowhere quoted by name. It is note worthy that in the dharmasthiya section the Kauṭiliya several

190 कूटसाक्षिणो यमर्थमभूतं कुर्युर्भूतं वा नाशयेयुस्तद्दशगुणं दण्डं दयुरिति मानवाः ।

*. III. 11. 45 ; TAHR algumastat HIET HELE TUE sfat Aparat:

1. III. 17. 3. 191 स्त्रीपुंगोहेमरत्नानि देवविप्रधनं तथा । यौधेयं चोत्तमं द्रव्यमेषो मूल्यसमो नमः ।

बृहस्पति quoted in व्यवहारमयूख on साहस.

NSTIT

POON

FOUN

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

207

times quotes the viewes of ācāryas and of some others under the word “apare”. Some of these views correspond closely with the discussions in the ancient dharmasūtras. One of these is the question as to whom the child belongs to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotten. Kautilya first quotes the view of the acāryas that it belongs to the husband of the mother of the child, then says that some hold that it belongs to the begetter, while Kautilya holds that it belongs to both.193 It is to be noted here that both Baud. and Ap. say that according to the Brāhmana texts the sons belong to the begetter, while Vasistha says there is a dispute on the point, both views being supported by ancient authorities. Gautama speaks of both views and at last (18. 13” dvayorvā” ) seems to come to the same conclusion as Kautilya. It is not unli kely that Kautilya has in mind this discussion in the Dharma sūtras and also in Manu (9. 48-54 where the view is that the child belongs to the husband of the woman). Some of the other views attributed to acāryas are that a woman could visit the houses of her husband’s relations, of prosperous men, of village headmen, of female ascetics &c. (III. 4); that very poor men could divide even waterpots at a partition (III. 5); that the master who did not employ a servant ready to work according to agreement had to pay the wages agreed upon as if the work had been finished (compare Visnn V. 157 ); he who forcibly confined a man or woman or who by force relea sed another from imprisonment was to be fined between 500 and 1000 ( III. 17.10); that disputes of a remote date shall not be complained of and that he who is the first to complain wins, since one runs (to court ) as one cannot bear the pain (III. 19. 19 ); that in a complaint by one gambler against another, the successful party has to pay the fine called pūrvasāhasa and the defeated party the fine called madhya sāhasa ( III. 20.3 ).

The foregoing discussion about the dharmasthiya section shows that in the sphere of the administration of justice, Kautilya is far in advance of the dharmasūtras of Gautama,

192 परपरिग्रहे बीजमुत्सृष्टं क्षेत्रिण इत्याचार्याः । माता भना यस्य रेतस्तस्यापत्य

76497 i Pantalora fora: 1 t. III. 7. 1-3. Compati

1. 7. . 18. 9–13, t. y. . II. 2. 34-36, 314. 47. . 11. 6. 1 3-6 (where the same three verses as in Baud, ocour), afhy 17. 8–9.

208

Apastamba and Baudhāyana and so is later than these (though in certain matters such as the rights of women to succeed to males he closely agrees with Gautama and Apa stamba ), while he is earlier than the extant Manusmrti

not earlier than the oldest kernel of the Manusmrti) and very much earlier than Yūjīa valkya.

The Adhyaksapracāra (adbikarana II ) contains much original matter, thongh adhyaksas were known before Pāṇini and although Manu VII. 81 provides that the king should appoint various clever adhyaksas, no work gave an elaborate treatment of the work they were to do. Similarly, though Manu (IX. 252-53 ) cmphasizes that the king should sup press kantukas, there is hardly any treatment in Manu of that topic. All matters dealt with in some chapters of this section IV do not deal with criminal matters but rather un social or reprehensible matters. K. is conscious of this in IV. I. 65. The king should prevent from troubling the country those who are really thieves but are not known as thieves such as traders, artisans, actors, mendicauts, jugglers and others. This shows that Kant. was a very capable administrator. He mentions about twenty-five departments and the adhyaksas over them. The most important adhyaksa was the Samāhartr (Revenue Commissioner) in II. 6 and 35. Other important officers were the Prailestis (Magistrates ) (IV. 1). Three of them were of the rank of ministers and were charged with the work of suppressing criminals or undesirable persons. A. provides (in IV. 9. 1) that the Samāhartr and the magistrates (pradeṣtāra! ) should check the heads of departments and their subordinates and in (IV. 3. 16 ) provides for the punishment by fines of judges ( Dharmasthas ) if they threaten, upbraid or drive away a litigant or are guilty of other misconduct (IV. 9. 13-16 ). K. also provides for the punishment of magistrates in IV. 9. 20. K. shows great originality and makes elaborate provisions for the several departments of the State and his section on Adhyaksas occupies a little less than one–fourth of the whole work. It should be noted that from II. 10 p. 48 up to III. 3. p. 101 and again from III. 20. p. 129 to V. 5. p. 160, K. makes no reference to divergent views at all.

The question of the date of the Kautilīya can be at leal only approximately and for that we have to rely only by the internal evidence. The external evidence does not carry u

STUN coңA

FOUNDED

14. The Arthuśtīstrıt of Kautilya

209

we can only say that the Kautiliya is certainly not later than the 2nd century A. D. , since Kamandaka, the Tantrākhyāyik. and Bāna, speak of it with admiration. No one claims it to be earlier than 300 B. C. Even Keith who assigns it a late date and cannot place it earlier than 100 B. C. at the most has to admit (J. R. A. S. 1916, p. 135 ) that for a precise date we have no real ground.

The Kauṭiliya quotes five schools by name: Mānavāḥ (five times ), Bārhaspatyāḥ ( 6 times ), Auśanasāḥ ( 7 times ), Pārāśarāh ( 4 times ), Ambhiyāḥ (once ); and the following individual authors; Kātyāyana (1), Kiñjalka (1), Kauna padanta ( 4 ), Ghotakamukha (1), ( Dirgha ) Cārāyana (1), Parāśara ( 2 ), Pisuna ( 6 ), Piśunaputra (1), Bāhudantiputra (1), Bhāradvāja (7, once as Kanika Bhāradvāja ), Vāta vyādhi ( 5 ), Viśālāksa ( 6). He either differs from all these authors or they differ from each other in all the places where they are cited. All the individual authors (except Bāhu dantiputra ) that are cited only once occur in V. 5. 11 on the same page. Kautilya quotes the views of ācāryas about 53 times and in all cases (except in VII. 11. 37-38 ) be negatives their opinions. The word ‘Acāryāḥ’ means all or the great majority of the ancient authors on a sāstra collectively. Vide the author’s paper on the meaning of Ācāryāḥ’ in BORI. Silver Jubilee Vol. 1942, pp. 206-213. Kautilya is cited 83 times against some author or other (except in three cases viz. in III. 4. 36, VII. 15. 11, XIII. 4. 5). It is clear from A. that a difference is made by it between schools ( such as the Mānavāh &c ) and individual authors. It has been shown above that works on Arthasāstra composed by Brhaspati and Usanas existed before the Maha bhārata and the Dronaparva (7. 1) speaks of ‘Mānavi Artha vidyā’. If the work had been the product of a school, then instead of ‘iti Kautilyah’ we would have had the words’iti Kauṭiliyāh’or. Kautilyāḥ ‘. Besides, those learned scholars ( like Dr. Jolly, Keith and Winternity ) who assign the work to the 3rd century A.D. are quite unable to point to any person who could have been the author of the work in the 3rd century A. D. There is no Canakya or Kautilya who is known from inscriptions or literary works or traditions even as having flourished in the 3rd century A. D. and having been a great writer on Arthasastra. The Arthaśāstra employs the word ‘apare also in III. 7. 2 and the word ’eke’ twice in IX, 28 and 30.

Bhandark

210

The Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana mentions a Ghotakmukha and a Cārāyana. Whether they are identical with the authors cited by Kautilya is extremely doubtful. The Mahābhārata mentions among writers on Dandaniti the following who occur in the Kauṭiliya also :-Brhaspati, Manu, Bhāradvāja, Visā lāksa, Sukra ( the same as Usanas ) and Indra (probably Kautilya’s Bāhudantiputra ), whose abridgment of Brahma’s work is called Bāhudantaka in the Sāntiparva (chap. 59 ).

According to the Nayacandrikā, Pisuna, Bhāradvāja, Kauna padanta and Vāta vyādhi stand for Nārada, Dronācārya, Bhisma and Uddhava respectively (pp. 73, 69, 74, 91 ).

The Mahābhārata mentions other writers on politics, viz. Gauraśiras, Kaśyapa, Utathya, Vāmadeva, Vasuhoma, Kāman daka (Santiparva 123. 11 ) and a few others which are not found in the Kauṭiliya.

The Kautiliya knows the four Vedas, the charms and incantations of the Atharvan, the six angas, includes under Itihāsa, Puranas, Dharmaśāstra and Arthasastra; it knows the Saṅkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata 103 schools of thought. It mentions Mauhurtikas, Kārtantikas ( astrologers ), Jupiter and Venus. It refers to dhñtuśāstra ( Metallurgy ). Sanskrit was the official language and in the Sāsanādhikāra it men tions such gunas of composition as mādhurya, audārya, spastatva, which show the beginnings of the Alamkāra-sāstra. There is nothing to wonder at in this. In the second century A. D. we have the inscription of Rudradāman, which enu merates the gunas of KĀvya. The Kauçiliya does not mention edicts on stone or copper. It refers to Vaisikakalājñāna ( II. 27. 28). The Kauṭiliya closely agrees with the Kamasutra in several respects, and the two works contain several iden tical passages ( such as the list of kings that fell victims to intrigues and about trivarga). Keith argues from this that the Kautiliya and the Kāmasūtra are not separated by a long interval and that it is a late work. Dr. Jolly also is of the same opinion (p. 24 Intro. to Arthaśāstra ). If the Kama sutra held up the Kautiliya as its model, then the two works would certainly look very much alike. There are points of

193770177 occurs in the ETH5021 on Quail adresa ( 91. VILK. 48

afaa. ). Vide Kielhorn vol, III., pp. 325-326.

FOUNDEI

14. The Arthasāstra of Kautilya

211

difference between the two works, e. y. they differ in their attitude towards flesh-eating and the Kamasutra speaks of planetary influence and lagna, while the Kautiliya is silent on these points and only condemns in general terms the con sulting of stars. We must note here that Kauṭiliya (IX. 4.26) speaks of consulting nalcștrcs, which were known from the earliest Vedic period and some of which were looked upon as auspicious for sacrificial purposes even in the Satapatha Brāh mana ( 8. B. E. vol. 44, pp. 1-2) and the Srauta and Gșhya sūtras. The Kauṭiliya follows the Vedānga Jyotisa in the system of a yugu of five saṁvatsaras, in prescribing two intercalary months in a yua and in saying that at the end of one uyana the variation between the length of the day or the night comes to six muhurtas ( vide 11. 20. 66). Keith argues that the slokas in the Kautiliya are more classical than even those of the Rāmāyana and that it contains correct Tristubh stanzas which are wanting in the Brhaddevatā (a work of the 4th century B. C. ). But this argument can produce no impression on those scholars who ascribe the Rāmāyaṇa to the 5th century B. C or earlier. Nor is the date of the Brhad devatā beyond the pale of discussion. There is no consensus of opinion among scholars as to the exact time when classical slokas and correct Tristubhs first came into vogue. It is to be noted that the Kauṭiliya defines pada as varṇasanghāta and not as in Pāṇini ( sup-tinantar padam ).

Among the countries and peoples frequently mentioned by Kautilya, several are interesting. He speaks of silks from the land of the Cinas104 and blankets from Nepal. Keith says that the name Cina, being derived from the Thsin dynasty in China ( which began its rule in 247 B. C. ), would show that the Kauṭiliya could not have been composed about 300 B. C. No one however knows how the word Cina was derived and besides as Keith admits the passage may be an interpola tion.

Many scholars have misunderstood the word ‘cina’ occurring in II. 11. 114’tayā kauśeyam cīna pattāśca cinabhū mijā vyākhyātāh’. Cina’ here does not mean what is modern China at all. The Sabhāparva ( Arjuna’s conquests ) chap. 26 ( verses 7-8 ) states that Arjuna invaded Prāgjyotisa (ident Kūmarūpa ), the king of which was Bhagadatta, who ho

FOUNG

191

194

74 aptari faqaye atazfiat EITTEETAT: 1987. II. 11. 114.212

supported by Kirātas, cinus and other soldiers from coun tries bordering on the sea (sa kirātaiśca cinaisca vstaḥ Prāg. jyotisosbhavati anyaiśca bahubhir-yodhaih sāgarānūpavā sibhih ). That is, the Cinas spoken of in this passage were in modern Assam. Besides, this one sentence in A. might have been interpolated in later times. Moreover, kings are named after countries ( e. y. a king of Magadha is called Magadha ), but a king hardly ever gives a name to the country he rules at least in historic times, Besides, in Udyogaparva ( 86. 10 ) Dhrtarāstra is made to say that he wonld present to Krsna

skins from Cina. That is. Cina was a country abound ing in deer skins also. Jacobi (in I. A. Vol. 53 at p. 133 ) does not accept the theory that the name China was derived from the name Thsin ( 247 B. C. ).

i

As regards the home of Kautilya or Canakya there is some divergence of views. Jolly (in Intro. p. 43 ) remarks that ’the geographical horizon of the author on the whole points to a southern rather than to a northern home’ and for supporting this opinion he relies only on two circumstances, viz. (1) the only known inss. of the Arthaśāstra exist in the South and ( 2 ) in the discussion of trade routes ( VII. 12 ) the route to the South is declared to be preferable because the commodities of shells, diamonds, gems, pearls and gold are more abundant there. 196 Both these grounds are worthless for supporting Jolly’s conclusion about Kautilya’s home. Northwest and North India were harassed for many centuries before and after the Christian era by frequent invasions of Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Hūnas and others; therefore the copying of mss. was neglected. Mss. of many works of authors from North India were found not in North India but only in South India. The Vākyapadiya has been quoted above (). 76 n. 102 c. ) to show that the Mahābhāṣya was restored from mss. that existed in the South. Vide above. The mss. of the Kāvyā. lankāra of Bhāmala (& Kashmirian ), were found in the south and were published first in the South. The 2nd ground is based on a misconception. Daksināpatha ordinarily means ’the Southern countries’ (generally south of the Narmadā ).

195 स्थलपथेऽपि ‘हैमवतो दक्षिणापथाच्छ्यान्, हत्यश्वगन्धदन्ताजिनरूप्यसुवर्णपण्या:

सारवत्तराः’ इत्याचार्याः । नेति कौटिल्यः। कम्बलाजिनाश्वपण्यवर्जाः शहर a warung mga iqoquia tunaci premi di spelatter VII. 12. 2014

STITU?

FOUNDE

14. The Arthuśāstra of Kautilya

213

For example, that word occurs in the Nanayhat cave Inscrip tion (about 200 B. C. ) in A. S. W. I. Vol. V. p. 60, in the Mahābhāṣya of Patanjali (Kielhorn’s ed. Vol. I. p. 73 ), where it is said that the word sarcisi is used in Dakṣiṇāpatha for large lakes. The Inscription of Rudradāman (at Junagad ) speaks of Satakarni as Lord of Daksiṇāpatha. Rhys Davids in ‘Buddhist India’ (p. 22 ) states that the name occurs in one of the oldest Buddhist documents viz. Suttanipāta 976. The Matsya purana ( 15. 28 ) speaks of the river Narmadā as

Daksinapathaganini’. But in the above passage in the Kauṭiliya the word Daksināpatha is not used in the sense of a region, but probably in the sense of trade route to the south’. Kautilya preferred Daksinapatha, not because it was his home, but because it yielded valuable commodities and more taxes for the State treasury and because his main thesis was that in polity’ artha’( material good, wealth ) is the most impor tant matter. It has already been stated above that he was from Gāndhāra ( a3 he mentions that country in the matter of the defamation of a country ). This is further corroborated by his statement about fermented liquors of various kinds in II. 25. In II. 25. 16 he names ‘medaka, prasannā, ūsava, arista, maireya and madhu’. Then he refers to their preparation. The Madhu kind of wine is produced from the juice of grapes and their designations are derived from the place of origin such as Kāpiśāyana and Hārahūraka. Pārini IV. 2. 99 derives

Kāpisayana’ from Kipisi which was an ancient city in the Kabul valley. Viile E. 1. vol. 22 p. 11 for a Kharosthi inscri ption on a Beyram bas-relief where Sten Konow states that Kāpisi is ancient Begram on the contluence of Ghorband and Panjsbir rivers. A. in II. 25. 22 says that the maireya wine is prepared from a decoction of the bark of inesabrogi with the addition of jaggery haviny a mixture of long pepper and black pepper as inixed with triphulū (the three myrobalans).186 This shows that maireya had many ingredients. Pān, in VI. 2. 70’ angāni maireye’ prescribes the accent when Maireya is

196 HETA M TAYTAY IT …… Hat Franzitetanya ….. Forfesto

युक्तो वा मैरेयः । गुडयुक्ताना वा सर्वेषां त्रिफलासम्भारः । मृवीकारसो मधु । TRT T QETH FITTETEA ERE Afa i 3741o 11. 25. 16, 22-25, For the meaning of 271 647 hore, compare Pāṇ. IV. 3. 66 a

व्याख्यान इति व्याख्यातव्यनाम्नः ‘. क्षीरस्वामी on ‘मदिराकश्यमये । : remarkin1715141 After 971 (izi? ) gigi #iration and

214

compounded with its ingredients (as in Madhumaireya ). Intoxicants from grape juice were made in many parts of India. Since Kautilya meptions only two places on the north west of India, it is reasonable to infer that he came from those parts. Jayaswal in JBORS, vol. II, pp. 79 ( note ) identifies Hārahūraka with Arachosia ( for which see above p. 172 ). In. The geography of Kautilya’ by Harihar Trivedi in I. C. vol. I pp. 247-261 ) an attempt is made to identify the coun tries from wbich according to the A. (II. 11 ) pearls and diamonds came, but most of it is conjectural and the names of countries and districts have changed during the last 2200 years. Cunningham (in Ancient Geography of India’, ed. of 1924 on p. 22 ) says that Pliny mentions the district of Kapisene, its ancient capital being Kapisa, which was des troyed by Cyrus and Ptolemy places the town of Kapisa amongst the Paropamisadie ’north of Cabul’.

In Lama Taranath’s · History of Buddhisın’ translated into German by A. Schiefner (St. Petersburg, 1869 ) some reports about Canakya are given. Taranath was born in 1575 A. D. (1573 A. D. acc. to some ) and wrote his history in 1608. Portions of the German translation of his work appear in I. A. Vol. IV. pp. 101-104 and 361-66. He takes the work of Ksemendrabhadra ( a Pandit of Magadha ) as his basis and also relies on two other works viz. Buddhapurāṇa by Pandita Indradatta of a Ksatriya family, in which all events up to four Sena kings are recorded (i. e. this work must have been later than 1200 A, D, at least ) and another ancient history by a brāhmana Pandita Bhataghaṭi about the succession of teachers. It must be remembered that Taranath wrote 1900 years or at least 1300 years after the supposed dates of Cānakya. On p. 1010 n of H. of Dh. Vol. V it has been indicated how Taranath’s account about Sarikarācārya and Kumārila is of a confused character. In Chap. XVIII of Schiefner’s transla tion ( on p. 88 ) Canakya is said to have been the minister of Bindusāra, son of Candragupta, who reigned for 35 years. In I. A. IV on p. 362 ( from Taranath ) it is said that Asoka was succeeded by his grandson Vigatāśoka, whose son Nanda ruled for 29 years and the latter’s son was Mahāpadma ; that is, Mahāpadma is stated here to be the son of the great-grand son of Asoka. It would be noticed how this recital of Asoka’s descendants is altogether confused and is worth little.

The Buddhist and Jain traditions associate Canakya will Gāudharu and from the Mudrārākṣasa also we learn this

14. The Arthceśāstra of Kuutilyu

215

pointed out above) that the army of Candragupta when he conquered Punjab and North-West India was made up of Yavanas and others guided by Canakya. The Mahāvarsa ( V. 16-17 ) says that Candragupta was a Maurya and a Ksatriya and that the Brāhmana Cūnakya, an irate person, killed the 9th Nanda and crowned Candragupta as king of the whole of Jambudvipa ( i. e. India ). The commentary on that work called · Vamsatthappakāsini ( edited by Dr. Mala lasekhara Vol. I. pp. 180-81 ) states that Canakya was the son of a Brāhmana from Takbasilā, was māyāvin, had studied Nīti (statecraft). These two epithets probably bave the Arthaśāstra in view. The fact that Kautilya states (in A. II. 20. 37-38 ) that the difference between the longest and sbortest day is 12 ghaṭikas clearly indicates that he was a resident of the extreme North-west of India. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part I, p. 538 n 785,

On the question of the age and authenticity of the Kautiliya a vast literature has accumulated and it would not be possible to review the whole in a brief manner. It is not possible at present to state whether scholars will ever be unanimous on these two points.

There are three principal groups of writers on the question of the age of the Kauṭiliya. First come those who hold that the Kauṭiliya is.a genuine work of Canakya or Kautilya, that minister of Candragupta Maurya. Candragupta was king between about 321 B. C. to 297 R. C. It has been stated above that Kautilya was associated with the earlier career of Candragupta. Therefore, the Arthasāstra should be held to have been composed between 320 to 300 B. C. or thereabout. When a scholar says that A. belongs to the 4th century B. C. he does not mean that it is to be placed between 399 B. C. to 300 B. C. We shall have to assign the work to a short period in that century i. e. between about 320-300 B. C. or rather between 320-310 B. C. This date for the Arthasāstra is accepted by Jacobi ( in I. A. Vol. 47 pp. 157-161, 187-195 and I. A. 53. pp. 128-136 and 141-144 ), by Dr. Shamasastri in his Prefaces to his editions of 1909 and 1919 and in S. K. Aiyangar Presentation Vol. (pp. 122-6), and by Fleet, Breloer, Meyer, Jayaswal, M. M. Ganapatigastri, Dr. D. R, Bhandarkan (ABORI Vol. VII. pp. 65-84), N. N. Law, Sten Konow and several others. The present author holds that this is the correct view and he will state a little later some of the com

216

llistory of Dharmaśiīstra

pelling reasons for the same. The 2nd group of scholars assigns the Kauṭiliya to about 300 A. D. and the principal representatives of this group are Dr. Jolly (Intro. pp. 1-47 of the edition of A. ), Keith (in JRAS 1916 pp. 130–137 and B. C. Law Presentation Vol. I. pp. 477-495 ), Winternitz (Cal. Review, April-June, 1924, pp. 1-28 ). The main argu ments of this group have been dealt with above and rejected. No further reference need be made to their arguments. There is a third non-descript group of scholars who do not accept either 300 B. C. or 300 A. D. as the date of the Kauṭiliya, but put it at different dates between 300 B. C. and 300 A. D. Reference need be made only to a few of them. Dr. B. M. Barua in Bhāratakaumudi (in honour of Prof. R. K. Mookerji ) contributes an article called the Arthasāstra, blend of old and new’ pp. 85-119. His conclusion is that the extant Arthaśāstra is anterior to the Junagad Inscription of Rudra dāman (150 A. D. ) and may be placed near the beginning of the Christian era. He himself points out (on pp. 102-104) how certain phrases are common to the Kautiliya and the Asoka Inscriptions. He has already been criticized above about the two verses quoted in the king’s exhortation to his soldiers (pp. 177-8 above). He unnecessarily parades certain facts e. g. on p. 101 he refers to thirty-four or more Tantrayuktis in Vāgbhaṭa, Caraka and Susruta* (all medical writers ). It is

m

---

It is unnocesgnry to quoto all early medical writers. The Caraka. sanhitū (in Siddhisthāna, Chap. 12 verge 41 ) roads sadvinnsatā vicitrabhiḥ bhūṣitam tantrt–yuktillin’ and in verses 41-45 (Nir. ed, of 1941 with Cakrapānidatta’s com. ) sets out the nnmos of the Tantrayuktis as Adhikarana, Yoga &c., many of which are the same as in A, XV. 2 ( which nmos thirtytwo). In Jivananda’s on, of the Carakagamhita (text only, of 1896 ) the roading is

pañcatrimśnd-vicitrābhiḥ! Caraka, Susruta and Vāghhata come at the end of a long poriod of medical studies. This is not the place to entor into the question of Indian medicine. In the Rgvoin the word ‘bhiṣak’ (physician) occurs frequently (as in I. 116, 10, II. 33, 4, IX, 112-1, X, 97, 6). The word “O;ndhi’ occurs dozeng of times in the Rgveda and so does the word ‘bhoaja! Ry. X. 163. 3-4 give the names for intestines and other internal organs, The word “pitta’ occurs in Atharyaveda I. 24 and Atharva v. 13. 4 states that poison kills poison (cures or orndientes poison,

vi ena hanmi te viṣnm ‘). The Bihariranynkopani;ad (I. 1 ) refers to Yakıt and Kloman. Panini know the disease pilos’ (arga V. 2. 127 ) and (utisāra’ (diarrhoon ) in V, 2, 129 and Vārtikas o POD V. 1,38 refer to the three humours of Vata, Pitta and Slesman and

( Continuell on the next page)

FOUNDED

1917

14. The Arthcśāstra of Kautilya

217

difficult to understand what conclusions one can draw from this taken with the fact of the Arthaśāstra containing 32 Tantrayuktis. It may easily be said by any scholar that the medical writers named by Dr. Barua borrowed from the Arthaśāstra, but that has hardly any bearing on the date of 300 B.C. An author may borrow passages or definitions from a work which was composed several hundred years before him. Dr. Bose agrees that Susruta is the borrower (p. 439 ) but avers ( without assigning any reason ) that K. preceded him by only a few decades. This is nothing but a mere guess or assertion. On Naipālakam (in A. II. 11. 100 ) he observes that even in the digvijaya of Arjuna in the Sabhāparva ( Mahābhārata ) the name of Nepāla does not occur and therefore the Arthaśāstra is a late work (pp. 114-115 ). Scholars should always be careful and cautious, parti cularly in dealing with the Mahābhārata, because it is a vast work and because there are several recensions of it. But in this particular case, unfortunately for Dr. Barua, Nepāla is mentioned in the digvijaya of Karna in the Vanaparva ( chap. 254. 7 isa Haimavatikan jitvā karam sarvān-ada payat i Nepālaviṣuye ye ca rājānas-tān-avājayat II).

E. H. Johnston ( in J. R. A. S. for 1929 pp. 78-102, at p. 89 and JRAS 1939 at p. 225 ) says that the Artha śāstra cannot be placed as late as 200 A. D. and that it is not likely to be earlier than the beginning of the Christian era. Similarly, Dr. Atindranath Bose in I. C. Vol. IV. ( for April 1938 p. 435 ) favours a post-Christian date for the Artha sāstra. He is really guilty of making an absurd use of the urgumentum ex silentio. In the Questions of Milinda’ (S. B. E. Vol. 36 on . p. 147 ) there is a single sentence as follows · And further there was Bhaddasala the soldier in

( Continued from the previous page) the callses or means of reducing or increasing their effocts and also of Sannipāta. In Sabhāparvan 11. 25 A yurveda is spoken of as fastānga and Sinti 28. 47 speaks of poople suffering from the effocts of old age oven though they know rasayanas and made use of them. These references show that centuries before the Christian ora lodian medicine had made great advances. Asoka’s 2nd Rock Ediot states that the emporor had made provision for the modight treatment ( cikitsa ) of mou and beasts ( cattlo &c.) and had caused to be supplied medicinal herbs suitable for men and animals ando had ordered the plantidy of such herbs where they were Hot available,

men

218

History of Dharmslīstra

the royal family of Nanda and he waged war against king Candragupta’. That sentence is preceded by the cruelties practised at that time in the words I have seen ten men expiating their crimes by being impaled alive and thirty, even forty, hundreds, thousands’. No Purāṇa or other ancient work speaks of Cāṇakya or Kautilya as a general; all that is claimed for him at the most is encouragement to others, and the use of unscrupulous means and stratayems. The sentence in the Milinda-praśna is not a history of a campign. It is only a stray sentence in a dialogue between a king and a Buddhist teacher. But the writer in I. C. IV waxes eloquent by saying that had K. been the man behind Candragupta, the historians of Alexander who wrote not solely on Megasthenes’ record, but utilized plenty of material now lost to us like Justin, Curtius, Arrian, Strabo and Plutarch would not have dismissed him with silent indifference while naming Candra gupta and Nanda. The war between Nanda and Candra gupta was fought about 320 B. C. Megasthenes came to the court of Candragupta later than 305 B. C. and yet he men tions no person of the Pataliputra court or of the whole of India except Sandracottog. Some of the historians that Dr. Bose mentions (in I. C. Vol. IV ) flourished about 100 A. D. (i. e. four hundred years after the war between Nanda and Candragupta ). How could they, living thousands of miles away from Patna, name any person that flourished four hundred years before them, when Megasthenes, an ambassador at the Patna Court, mentioned no eminent Indian by name except Sandracottos? He speaks of the Sangha of the Vrsnis (1.6) and the Sreṇis (corporations ) of Ksatriyas in the countries of Kambhoja and Surāstra that lived by vārtā ( agriculture and trade ) and by the profession of fighting and the corporations of the Licchcivika, Vrjika, Mallaka, Madraka, Kukura, and the Kurupancālas that live on the title ‘rāja’ (XI.1). Some of these tribes such as the Licchavis, Vrjis ( Vajjis in Pāli) and Mallas are well-known from ancient Buddhist works. What is meant by ‘rājaśabdopajivinaḥ’ is not quite clear. It probably means that the organisation of the Licchavis and others was on democratic lines and that there was very keen competition for the honour of being elected the chief or president of those corporations, the latte being designated ‘rāja’.197 The Nayacandrikā explains tbati 107 In the Jātakas (Fausbūll vol, I., p. 504 and vol. III. Pourtantes

reference is made to the 7707 rujas of the Licchavis in Vesali

1917

14. The Arthasāstra of Kautilya

219

i

they bear the proud designation of ‘rāja’ but are penniless (and so can be easily employed in military service as mercena ries). We are told that the breed of horses from Kambhoja, Sindhu, Āratta and Vanāyu was the best and that Bāblika, Pāpeya, Sauvīra and Taitala breeds were of middle quality. The Kautiliya speaks of Mleccha tribes and tells us that among them one’s own childern could be sold or pledged without incurring punishment (III. 13 ).

There is hardly any distinctive reference to things Budd. hist except one passage (III. 20 ) where a fine of one hundred ( paṇas ) is prescribed for him who invited to dinners in honour of gods or Manes a Buddhist ( Sākya), an Ajivaka, & śūdra ascetic. 108 This shows that the work was written at a time when Buddhism was yet not a wide-spread religion and had not secured an honourable place annong the people. The Ajiviku was a well-known sect in ancient India, said to have been founded by Makkhali Gosūla. Asoka donated caves to the Ajivikas on Barabar hill (vide Inscriptions of Asoka ed. by Hultzsch, 1925 p. 181 ) when he had been anointed twelve years as king and his grandson Dasaratha ( 215 B. C.) donated to them caves at Nāyārjuni hill. The 7th pillar Edict of Asoka refers to Brāhmanas, Ājivikas and Nirgranthas (E. I. Vol. 20, pp. 270-272 ). Rhys Davids in ‘Buddhist India ’ ( ed. of 1950 ) p. 87 holds that the Ajivika order was older than the Buddhist. Makkhali Gosāla, the leader of the sect, was at first a disciple of Mahāvīra but later left him. The Vāyupurana ( 69. 281–289 ) paints a dark picture about the Ajivas (or-vikas ). Kautilya says that weights should be made of iron or of stones from Magadha and Mekala ( country near the sources of the Narmadā ).100

The verse ( of A. I. 6. 12 ) saying that Jāmadagnya i. e: Parasurūma, that had brought under control the senses by giving up the group of six enemies ( viz. kāma, lobha &c ) enjoyed the earth for a long time and so did Ambarıṣa, son of Nabhāga. On this Jacobi remarks ( I. A. vol. 53 at p. 144 ) that the Mahābhārata and the Balakāṇda of the Rāmāyana know nothing that Jāmadagnya ever was a king. The verse

198

1997 yafata cara ring 11F4G: The otto III. 20. 16.

FanTaTUTASIA HITTAFFRICANIA 1. II. 19. 10.

FOUN

19:

199

220

History of Dharmaśāstra.

in question does not use any word for ‘king’. The intended meaning is not that Paraśurāma actually ruled over the earth for a long time as king. The Mahābhārata in several places states that Parasurama wrested the earth from the Ksatriyas as many as 21 times, performed sacrifices and donated the earth to Kaśyapa and the prests ( vide Vanaparva, 117. 9-11)

• trihsaptakrtvah prthivim kṛtvā niḥksatriyām prabhuḥ… ! tato yajūena mahatā Jāmadagnyaḥ pratāpavāni tarpayāmāsa devendram-rtvigbhyaḥ pradadau mahim !); vide also Adi parva 130. 61-62, Dronaparva 70. 15-19, Salyaparva 49. 7-10, where the donee is the sage Kasyapa. The idea is that he gave up lobha ( greed ) which is the root of all sins ( lobhamūlāni pāpāni ) and, though the whole earth was his, he donated it to others several times. For doing this he must have lived long. Ambarıṣa also is mentioned in the Aśvamedhikaparva (chap. 31 ) as reciting gāthās ( 7-12 ) expressing the idea that Lobha was the greatest enemy. Ambarīsa is mentioned as a great king in the Rgveda 1. 100. 17. Paraśurāma is one of the seven or eight long-lived (cirajivin ) personages. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II, p. 648 and Vol. V. p. 208n ).

! Jolly (Intro. pp. 34-35 ) refers to knowledge of alchemy and metallurgy exhibited by the Kauṭiliya, the political and economic institutions and social conditions described in A. and states that they are in a far more advanced stage than those recorded or alluded to by Megasthenes. It has been shown above what worth is to be attached to the few fray ments of Megasthenes. The columns erected by Aśoka about twentytwo hundred years ago are witnesses of the great attainments of the Indians of those days in chemical processes, polish, metals and even in these days modern chemists have not been able to show how that polish was made. Dr. Stein in his work on · Kautilya and Megasthenes’ ( Wien, 1922) compares the information in the fragments of M. with that in the Kautiliya and on the slender basis of the fragments of Megasthenes ( whom Strabo called & liar ) arrives at the conclusion that the items of difference overweigh the coin cidences both in number and importance. He also draws attention to the word ‘Surungā'200 mentioned several times in the A. and holds that it was probably derived from syrinx’,

POONA

200

“Surunga’ occurs in A. 1. 20, 2, V. 2. 42, VII. 17. 33, XII. 18. XIII, 1, 3, XIII. 2. 44 and appoars to moan it subterranean paino or tupuol.

FOUNDI

1917

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

221

& Greek word often occurring in the description of sieges in Polybius and Diodorus. Winternitz (in I. H. Q. I pp. 429 432 ) agrees with Dr. Stein.

In the 19th century and the first quarter of 20th century Western scholars clung to the theory that science, philosophy and arts began in Greece and that other nations merely bor rowed them from the Greeks. That bubble of Greek origi nality in many matters has been pricked. The Greeks them selves borrowed many things from Babylon and Egypt; vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 482, 522n, 549, 594, 700 for authorities. Now Prof. Neugebauer (JAOS. Vol. 61 pp. 213-215 ) avers that Babylonian methods of calculation together with Greek went to India. There is no doubt that there was cultural intercourse between Babylon and the Punjab as far back as the third millenium B. C. and the intercourse was by land. Peacocks, rice and Indian sandlewood were known in Pale stine under their Tamil names in the Hebrew Chronicles of Genesis and Kings. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. part I pp. 598-600 and notes 893-900 for further information. The Hittite and Mitanni records ( of about 1400 B. C. ) show that Vedic gods ( such as Indra, Varuna, Mitra and Nāsatya ) were in their pantheon and Prof. A. H. Sayce ( in Pavry Commemoration Vol. pp. 399-402 ) draws attention to the fact that Hittite numerals are Sanskrit and bolds that in the 15th century B. C. people that lived in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor spoke Sanskrit. Therefore, the word Suruga might have been taken from Mesopotamia ( or from Egypt ) long before the Greeks had anything to do with India. Unless one can prove that a word like Surunga is not found at any time in docu ments from Mesopotamia, Egypt or other very ancient coun tries, to assert that Surunga was borrowed from Greek Syrinx is merely to jump to a conclusion without any proper evidence on the mere vround of similarity of letters or sounds.

The third question raised above (p). 197 ) is whether the Arthaśāstra was originally entirely in prose or entirely in verse or in mixed prose and verse as at present. Most scholars are agreed that originally it was substantially the same as pow (i. e. largely in prose, with a verse or’a few verses at the end of chapters (and rarely in the midst of chapter ). Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (in ABORI. Vol. VI. pp. 65-84 ), while placing the Kauṭiliya at 300 B.C., hota that the Kautiliya was originally in verse and was later222

turned into prose about the time of Dandin (on pp. 77–84 ). He refers to the words of Dandin (quoted above p. 165 )‘iyam … sarkṣiptā ‘( which means ’this whole science of Dandaniti was abridged in six thousand ślokas’). He holds that that meaning of Sloka ( unit of 32 syllables ) is most modern. Here he is entirely wrong. Those words of Dandin are taken from the present text of the Kauṭiliya itself ( I. 1. 18 ) Sapanc. sadadhyāyasatam sat-ślokasahasrāṇīti ). Besides, a similar sense of sloka is found in the Kāmasūtra quoted below. There fore, the word sloka meant also a unit of 32 syllables at least in the 3rd century A. D. He makes sweeping assertions for which he adduces very little evidence viz. ‘No reasonable doubt is permissible that there was a time when the Artha śāstra of K. was wholly composed in verses’ and again all the writers prior to Dandin who quote from Arthaśāstra quote verses’ and he cites a few verses. This statement is an argument in a circle as he presumes that the verses are quoted from the supposed Arthaśāstra in verse. Now the verge (Samvatsarena patati’ in A. IV. 7. 28 ) occurs in Manu XI. 180 (last pāda differing ), Sānti 165. 37, Baud. Db. S. (II. 1. 62, Mysore Govt. edition, 1907) and Vas. I. 22 ( preceded by the words ‘athāpyudāharanti ) as shown above on p. 98. So in Vas. it is a quotation, but the question is from whom. Manu (in its original form ) might have contained it and Baud. Dh. S. is an old Dharmasūtra. And therefore A. might have taken it from Baud. or from Sāntiparva or some earlier source. Similarly, the verse Pradipah sarva-‘in Vātsyāyanabhāsya might have been taken in the 4th century A. D. by that work from the present Arthaśāstra ( that verse is A. I. 2. 12 ) at the end of the chapter. There were no printed books in ancient and medieval India. Verses can be easily remern bered as compared to prose passages. Verses in the extant A. are few viz. only about 375 in the whole of it, while the prose passages occupy at least 250 printed pages. The verses * Dharmaśca’ and ’tatra satye’ ( occurring in A. III. 1. 39-40 ) also occur in Nārada I. 10-11. Nārada might have taken them from the extant Arthagāstra or from the original Manu-smrti of which Nārada is said by tradition to be gute versiou. Nārada is not assigned to an earlier date than a A. D. But how does this yo to establish that the whole of Nie

1.4. The Arthesāstrut vf Kuulilyu

223

vast Arthaśāstra was in verse ? Similarly, the verge Deśasya jātyāh'201 &c. (A. III. 7. 40 ) might have been there when the other part was in prose. A similar verse is cited as Katya yava’s by the Vivādaratnākara. And that verse refers to Bhrgu, the supposed author of the extant Manusmrti. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar’s is merely a fantastic assertion without any solid evidence whatever. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar is not able to state who could have transformed thousands of verses into prose while keeping a few hundred intact, exactly when and for what purpose. Why should one who undertook such a tremendous task have done it incognito ?

Another scholar who holds the theory that the A. was originally all in verse is Dr. Pran Nath (in I. A. Vol. 60 pp. 109-112, 121-123 anıl 171-174 ). He cites only 28 passa ges to show that they could have been originally in verse but were transformed; he cites only ten passages which become verses by the addition or removal of a word or two. The ordinary Anustubh metre is so simple that any prose passage can be easily turned into verse, since each pārta has eight syllables of which the majority (viz. five ) may be either short or long. Dr. Pran Nath is singular in assigning A. D. 484-510 A. D. as the date of the A. when all others assign it to 300 B. C. to 300 A. D. only. He need not be taken seri ously and may be left alone.

About the personal history of Kautilya or Cānakya we know very little. That he was an inhabitant of Gāndhāra has been pointed out above and if we trust the traditions on which the plot of the Mudrārāksasa is based, it may be said that he lived a very simple life and had no personal ambitions. He was a man of extensive reading and had studied parti cularly all the works composed before him on Arthaśāstra, as is expressly declared in the very first sentence. He had seen the ravages (both physical and mental) caused by foreign in vasions of India and his great ambition seems to have been to see that the whole of what he calls Cakravartiksetra should be under the strong but benevolent rule of a noble and capable king. And he composed his great work as he says (II. 10. 63) 201 देशस्य जातेः सङ्कस्य धर्मो ग्रामस्य यो भृगुः । उदितः स्यात्स तेनैव दायधर्म

Forondra II FEITO q. in fq. T. p. 508 ; compare ETWAINTIE vara ganha raia i TOPESTOTEHOT Très

f arat: 1 HET I. 118.

224

History of Dhurmuśāstra

for the guidance of his favourite king ( and for all kings who wanted to be powerful ). He appears to have been a brāhmana of the traditional type. In I. 3 he speaks of the four Vedas and also of Itihāga veda, the six vedārgas, the four varṇas and āśramas, the peculiar dharmas of brāhmanas ( study of Veda, performing secrifices, making gifts, teaching Veda, officiating at sacrifices and receiving religious gifts ), of Ksatriyas, vaisyas and sūdras, of householders, brahmacārin, forest hermit and sannyāsin and he prescribes for all men cominon duties ( in I. 3. 13 ) viz. ahiṁsā, truthfulness, purity, freedom from malice, compassion and forbearance (sarvesām-ahimsā, saucam, anasūyānrsamsyam, ksama ca ). Compare Manu X. 03 and Gaut. 8. 24. And he adds in I. 3. 14-17 the perfor mance of one’s special duties leads to heaven and to ever lasting bliss.2012 On transgressing ( dharma ) people ( who do So ) would be destroyed on account of the confusion ( about duties and castes ). Therefore, the king should not allow people to transgress their duties, since by enforcing adherence ( of people ) to their respective duties he, (the king ) finds joy in this world as well as after death; and again (in 1.4.16) he says ’the people of the four varṇas and belonging to their respective āśramas ( the four stages of life ), when protected i. e. controlled by the king with the rod (of punishment ) and devoted to their proper duties and occupations, keep to the paths proper for them. He believed in the four goals of human beings (Purusārthas ) viz. dharma, artha, kāma and moksa ; allows to the king the option (in 1. 7. 4) to devote himself to the first three equally (which are tied to one another ( samam vā trivargam-anyonyānubaddham ). This is like Manu II. 224 ( trivarga iti tu sthitih ). He was in favour of the privileged position of brāhmaṇas in certain respects. He prescribes in all offences a brāhmaṇa was not to suffer bodily punishment’.202 But on his forehead shall be made a branded

2012 Farf: Fautem cara fl speo I. 3, 14:

Brabma is said to be satyam-inānamanantam’ in Tai. Up, IL 1. Therefore, here anantya’ sbould be taken to mean ‘ondlosy bliss’ i. e. moksa. Compare Gaut. XI. 9-11, 26, 31, Manu VII, 17, 27, 36, VIII. 304,

Yaj. I. 335, 337, 357, 359, 202 सर्वापराधेष्वपीडनीयो ब्राह्मणः । तस्याभिशस्ताको ललाटे स्याद् व्यवहारपतमाया, स्तेये श्वा, मनुष्यवधे कबन्धः , गुरुतल्पे भगम् , सुरापाने मद्यध्वजः । माहाण

( Continued on the next page)

FOUNDE

1917

14. The Arthuśāstrı of Kautilya

225

mark excluding him from dealings with others; that in case of theft the mark was to be a dog, a headless trunk in case of the murder of a human being, mark of female organ in case of violation of a guru’s bed, mark of wineseller’s flag in case of being guilty of drinking liquor. Such a man, after being branded, was to have his misdeed proclaimed, was to be exiled from the country or was to be settled in mines. It will be seen that in all these matters Kautilya treads the same path as the Dharmasutras and smrtis (like those of Manu and Yājñavalkya ). Kautilya further provides ( 1. 2. 2 and 10-12) that there are four Vidyā8 ( subjects of study ) for the king viz. Anviksiki (latiocination ), trayi ( the three vedas ), vārtā ( economics i, e. agriculture, rearing of cattle and trade ), Dandaniti ( science of politics and government ) and that after upanayana the king should learn Trayi and Anvikșiki from sistas ( learned people ), Virtā from Adhyaksas ( superin tendents of various departments ), Dandaniti from ( theore tical ) teachers and from persons who have practical know ledge. The meaning of Anviksiki ( which acc. to Kautilya I. 2. 10 includes Sārkliya, Yoga ani Lokāyata ) has been discussed at great length in the H. of Dh. Vol. IIl pp. 46-54. Sārkhya is based completely on Tarka and does not even postulate God; and Yoga, while accepting the theories of Sākhya, finds a place for īśvara, but not as creator of the world. Therefore Yoga also is to some extent Tarkavidyā. It should be noted that the meaning of the wori Lokiyata changed from time to time ( as shown in H. of Dh. Vol. III, pp. 46-54 and in the notes thereon ). Literally, it means ‘what is reached by ordinary people’( loka+ayata, long, extended ). Kķīraswami on Amarakośa states that Anviksiki is ’tarkavidyā.’ The Adiparva ( 70.40 ) states that in Kanva’s hermitage there

(Continued from the previous page) पापकर्माणमुद्दष्याङ्ककृतव्रणम् । कुर्यान्निविषयं राजा वासयेदाकरेषु वा ॥ अर्थ. IV. 8. 27–29. Compare 7 TITT ATACE: 1 t. 7. X. XII. 43 ; अवध्यो वै ब्राह्मणः सर्वापराधेषु ब्राह्मणस्य ब्रह्महत्या-गुरुतल्पगमन । सुवर्णस्तेय-सुरापानेषु कुसिन्ध-भग-शृगाल-सराव जास्तप्तेनायसा ललाटेकयिता fāruiffH7H I J. 4. 1. 10. 14–19.

226

History of Dhurmusāstra

were Lokāyatikas along with students of Veda, Vedāngas and sāstras. 203

Similarly, in Santiparva ( chapter 218. 9 ) the Lokāyata matat is said to have been expounded by Pancasikha, the first pupil of Asuri, to king Janaka. The doctrines propounded are Sārkhya with a tinge of advaita Vedānta. Later on, the word came to mean a system in which the existence of the soul and of the other world was denied. Vide H. of D. Vol. II. pp. 358-359 and Vol. V. pp. 1205-6, and 1472 1. Kautilya it appears, regards Anviksiki as Tarkavidyā when he remarks (I. 2. 11-12) it (anviksiki) explains the relative strength of these three viz. Trayi, Vārtā and Dandaniti, (thereby) confers benefits on the people by reasoning, keeps the intellect steady in adversity and prosperity and brings about proficiency in thought, word and action. The Mitūksarī on Yāj. I. 317 explains Anviksikī as ātmavidyā anil quotes Manu VII. 43 ( which he appears to have read as · Anviksikiṁ cātmavid bhyah, just as Medhātithi does ). Kaut. (1. 2. 12 ) looks upon Anvīksiki as the lamp of all Vidyās ( sciences ), as the means of (determining ) all actions, the support of all dharmas i. e. duties ). He further provides that the three vidyās are based on ( the proper administration ) of Danda and that (the administration of) Danda when based on discipline brings Yogaksema to living beings. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 548-49 and vol. V, pp. 1385-86 for the meanings of Yogakṣema,

The 9th Adhikarana deals with the activities of the kiny who wants to be a conqueror and in the very first sūtra the A. specifies the matters which he should ascertain viz. his own strength and that of the other king as regards the country

203 वृत्तोपनयनत्रयीमान्वीक्षिकी च शिष्टेभ्यो वार्तामध्यक्षेभ्यो दण्डनीतिभ्यो वक्त

FEAT=772137470 1. 6.8; compare * VII. 43, Matsya 215. 54 (same as Manu), 91. 1. 311. nt. 4.. XI. 3 ( 921Himaliarei

a fania: 1). + नानाशास्त्रेषु मुख्यैश्च शुश्राव खनमीरितम् । लोकायतिकमुख्यैश्च समन्तादनु

A ch a tifaud 70. 46. The commentator Nilakampha explains ‘लोके एवायतन्ते ते लोकायतिकाः । तेषु लोकरञ्जनपरेषु मुख्यैः ।’ Thana not accurate. लोकायतिक is derived fcom लोकायत aoc. toh कात

IV. 2. 60 and it occurs in the

de:

FOUNDED

1917

14. The Arthasāstra of Kautilya

227

(place ), time, season for marching on invasion &c. and (in IX. 1. 18 ) he specifies the Cakravartiksetra ( the region of the sovereign ruler ) viz. the region extending northwards between the Himalaya and the ocean and one thousand yojanas across ( deśaḥ prthivi | tasyām Himavat-samudrān: taram-udicinam yojana sahasra-parimānam tiryak cakra vartikṣetram ). The word · Yojana .. parimūnai’is so placed that it may be construed either with the preceding ( length north-south) or with tiryak ( crosswise, i. e. east to west ). Some mss. read ‘atiryak’. The ( east to west ) breadth of India varies greatly and therefore it is better to take

• Yojanao’ with the length. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III pp. 66-67 about the meaning and derivation of Cakravartin, for names of Cakravartins in the Brāhmana texts and Upa nisads and for a passage from the Kavyamimāṁsa for Cakra vartiksetra. The words of K. show that his ambition for his sovereign ruler was limited to the present India and did not embrace other lands such as Java to which Indian culture spread later. Cakra means wheel and is a symbol of power and dominion. The word occurs dozens of times in the Rgveda. Prayers are made to Indra for driving away the asuras with his cakra in Rg. I. 53, 9, II. 11. 20, VIII. 9. 6-9. Indra is said to have set in motion the wheel ( wheel-like orb ) of the Sun (in Rg. IV. 17. 14 ). Vide ‘Dhammacakka-ppavattana-sutta (in SBE. vol. XI. pp. 146 153 ) for the essence of the teaching of Buddha. The Dipa vaṁsa ( VI. 2 ) says about Piyadassana ( Asoka ) that the wheel of his power rolled in the great kingdom of Jambu dvipa. Vide on Cakravartiksetra Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri in Rangaswami Aiyyangar Volume pp. 81-86 and Dr. D. C. Sircar in ‘Sarūpabhārati’ pp. 315-325 and for the

symbolism of wheel in Cakravarti conceptions’ Dr. Wije sekara in Dr. Belvalkar Felicitation Vol. pp. 262-267 and a paper in J. O. R. (Mad.) Vol. 27 pp. 85-90 by K. V. Soundar Rajan. From the wheel ( which rolls on ) the symbolism of the rule or dominion over people arose.204

The Amarakośa treats Cakravartin and Sārvabhauma as synonyms and defines saṁrād as a ruler who performs the Rājasūya, who is supreme over a circle of States and who

204

TRACKHA

The Adiparva romarks

faitaiaga hari

of HTIOFI 7 kia: ll’ 73. 30.

828

issues orders to kings. From Vedic times Samrāt and Sārva bhauma have been known. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 63-70 for treatment.

The A. emphasizes ( in I. 6 ) the great importance of the control of his senses by the king, which is to be attained ( by the king ) by giving up, lust, anger, greed, pride, haughti ness and foolish venturesomeness; and gives for each of the six failings two examples of ancient kings who perished by their being subject to one or other of these six; and then provides that the whole of this science ( of polity) means (is centred in ) control of the senses.306 About the goals of human life, A. states ( in I. 7. 7) that Artha ( material well-being ) is alone supreme ( for the king ); for spiritual good and pleasures of senses depend upon material well-being.

Kautilya prescribes ( in I. 19. 9-24 ) an ideal daily time table for his king who must always be active ( since if the king is active his servants become so, I. 19. 1 and 5 ). The day is divided into eight parts and the night also into eight parts. Supposing the day begins at 6 A. M. the work to be transacted in, each of the eight parts of the day is as follows. (1) 6. to 7. 30 A. M. he should listen to the measures taken for defence and income and expenditure; (II) 7. 30-9 A. M. the king should look into the affairs of citizens and the country people ; (III ) 9-10. 30 A. M. he should take a bath and meals and engage in study ;(IV) 10. 30 A. M.-to 12 noon he should receive gold (i. e. l’evenue in coins) and receive heads of departments; (V) 12 noon to 1.30 P. M. he should consult the council of ministers by sending letters and should acquaint himself with secret information gathered by spies ; (VI) 1. 30-3 P. M. he should engage himself at his pleasure in recreations or hold consultations ; (VII) 4. 30-6 P. M. he should consider military plans with the commander-in-chief; and when the day ends he should engage in evening worship. The time table for the night is as follows: (1) first 8th part of night) 6 P. M.-7. 30 P. M. he should see secret agents ; ( II ) 7. 30-9 P. M. he should take a bath, meals and engage in study ; (III ) 9 P. M.-10.-30 P. M. he should lie down amidst sounds

205 faangaaegu 454: 774***THAIAH CEPATTE: 1 …

Trailer: 1 sperto I, 6. 1 and 3. The six are called with (as in I. 7. 1)

I.

FOUNDED

1917

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

229

of musical instruments, and (IV-V) 10. 30 P. M.-1. 30 P. M., he should sleep; (VI) 1, 30 A. M.-3 A. M. he should awaken to the sound of musical instruments, ponder over the rules of the science of politics and also over the work that has to be done by him; ( VII )-3. A. M.-4. 30 A. M.–he should be in consultation with councillors and send out secret agents; (VIII)-4. 30 A. M.-6 A. M. he should receive blessings from priests, his teachers, purohita ( chaplain ) and see his physi cian, chief cook and astrologer and then after yoing round a cow with its calf and a bull lie should repair to the assembly hall or he should divide the day and night into other or ( different ) parts in keeping with his strength and carry out his duties.

It would be noticel how arduous is the work to be done by the ideal king and how his hours of rest and sleep are only four and a half from 9 P. M. to 1. 30 A, M. It may be noted that Manu VII. 210-225 and Yāj. I. 327-333 contain similar but briefer provisions about the daily time-table of the king

In the same chapter ( 1. 19. 33-35 ) the Kautiliya engages in a fine metaphor, comparing the king’s work of administra tion with a sacrifice and states: “Endeavour is the vow, and the fee is equal behaviour ( to all ), his coronation is the dīkṣā (initiation rite of a Vedic yujna ).” He places a very high and noble ideal before kings in the words in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king, what is beneficial to the subjects is to his tenetit; what is liked by (or dear to ) the king is not (really ) beneficial to him, but what is dear to the subjects is a really ) to his benefit. Therefore, the king, being constantly active, should regulate, or manage material well-being; activity ( endeavour is the root of material well being, the opposite (of activity ) is the root of calamities.

The 6th Adhikarana deals with the seven constituents of the Mandala viz. the king, chief minister, the country, the fortified capital, treasury, the army, ally. In VI. 1. 3-6 Kautilya specifies numerous qualities that the king should possess, such as ( to mention only a few ) birth in a high family, being endowed with intelligence, bravery, non-en fūr ing nature, quick despatch, cleverness. This chapter leads on to the 7th Adhikarana on Sūdgunya’ i.e. the six aspector measures of foreign policy (viz. place, war &c) and to the 8th

230

History of Dhurmusastra ·

(on Vyasinas or calamities of the constituent elements ). Kau. tilya’s position was ( VIII. 2. 1, Raja rujyamiti prakrtisaikse pah). that the king and the ruler’s kingdom is a summary ( of the seven ) elements i. e. they are the primary or foremost elements out of the seven ( mentioned ) above. If there be no ruler the country will at once be ruined, what is called Mitsjanyrigna208 will reign supreme, there will be no security of life and property, the strong will devour the weak. Simi larly, if there is no country there will be no king. The other elements are necessary but of secondary importance, e. g. a king may carry on administration for some time at least without a minister: and may appoint a ininister when he pleases. Kautilya himself says ‘It is the king alone who appoints the class of servants such as the councillors, the purohita (chaplain ) anil others, directs the activities of superintendents of departments; when the king himself is éndowed with excellence he makes the constituent elements

of the State ) endowed with excellences required by each of them; what character he las, that character the constituents come to possess, since they are dependent on him as to endea vour and reinissness; for the king is in the position of their head’.207 The words of K. ( raji rajyam……sanksepah) may also be interpreted as stating that the king is the State, i. e. he is the most important of the seven elements. That would be a theoretical statement. He makes it clear (in VIII. 1. 13 ff) in what sense the king is supreme viz. that it is he who appoints the ministers and removes ministers, who arranges

206 सुप्रणीतो हि दण्डः प्रजा धर्मार्थकामैर्योजयति । अप्रणीतस्तु मात्स्यन्याय

मुद्भावयति । बलीयानबलं हि असते दण्डधराभावे । स तेन गुप्तः प्रभवतीति । अर्थ• I. 4. 11-15; vide also ‘मात्स्यन्यायाभिभूताः प्रजा मर्नु राजनं चक्रिरे’ अर्थ. I. 13. 5; यदि न प्रणयेद्राजा दण्डं दण्ड्येष्वतन्द्रितः । शूले मत्स्यानिवा पक्ष्यन् दुर्बलान्बलवत्तराः ॥ मनु VII. 20 ( कुलूक writes that this is the readig of मेधा. and गोविन्दराज and he cites another reading जले मस्यानिवाहिंस्युः ; the शान्तिपर्व 15. 30 has जले मत्स्यानिवाभक्ष्यन् दुर्बला न्बलवत्तराः। मन्त्रिपुरोहितादिभृत्यवर्गमध्यक्षप्रचारं पुरुषद्रव्यप्रकृतिव्यसनप्रतीकारमेधनं च करोति । व्यसनिषु वामात्ये वन्यानव्यासनिनः करोति। … स्वामी च सम्पन्न… स्वसम्पद्भिः प्रकृतीः सम्पादयति । स यच्छीलस्तच्छीलाः प्रकृतयो भवति

उत्थाने प्रमादे च तदायत्तत्वात् । तत्कृटस्थानीयो हि स्वामीति । अशासि : . VIII. 1. 13-18.

207 मान

FOUNDED

1417

14. The Arthusūstra of Kautilyu

231

for the construction of forts, who levies taxes and who commands the army and decides upon friendship and war.

Though Kautilya was a brāhmana of the orthodox type, he seems to have been a follower of Byhaspati, who according to the Mahābhārata (quoted above ), held that there was a great difference between the code of conduct for ordinary people and that for the king. A strong ruler is absolutely necessary for the good administration of the country. There fore, Kautilya sets out all kinds of sinister methods in Adhi karana XIV for liquidating an enemy, such as intrigues, un scrupulous use of poison, desperadoes and prostitutes, magic and charms. His motto in this matter seems to have been that the end justifies the means. This earned for him the hatred of scholars like Bana; vide above p. 174. He wanted to be thorongh in strengthening the hands of the king in governing the country. The Pancatantra 208 says ’the realm (or gist) of politics is threefold viz. thoroughness according to Viṣṇugupta, the securing of allies acc. to Bhārgava ( Uśanas ) and distrust acc. to Brhaspati.’ It should not be supposed that all the sinister methods were employed by him or any one else at all times. As the Kamasutra says’ because a śāstra contains certain matters, it is not seen that they are actually used in practice; the matters dealt with in sāstras are all-embracing, while actual use is limited in extent’.209 As regards the adhikarana called Aupanisadikam (secret pratices, poisons and magic and spells ) Kautilya provides certain limi tations. He says ‘for the purpose of safeguarding the insti tution of four varṇas, he (the king ), should employ secret practices against the unrighteous. The group of poisons such as Kālakūta should be introduced into articles used by the enemy on his body through the instrumentality of approved men and women of mleccha communities disguised as hump backs, dwarfs, kirātas, dumb or deaf persons, appearing trust worthy as to country, dress, profession, speech and birth. It should not be supposed that Kautilya stands alone in recom

VESTI

208 सुकृत्यं विष्णुगुप्तस्य मित्राप्तिर्भार्गवस्य च । बृहस्पतेर विश्वासो नीतिसन्धिविधा

HAT: 11 92777 (ARIANTA ) Nir. sc. of 1936 p. 103 vorse 47. L

means ‘97 nitsfatto uf-1: math faqe 3TTTH Tr. 209 न शास्त्रमस्तीत्येतेन प्रयोगो हि समीक्ष्यते । शास्त्रार्थान् व्यापिनो विद्यात्प्रयाला…

Fransferatat el 19 VII. 2. 55.

191232

History of Dharmaśāstru

mending secret practices of poisons. The Vanaparva? 10 refers to the employment of secret practices to the accompaniment of mantras and muttered words declared in the Atharvaveda.

Western scholars, whose ancestors only a few hundred years ago burnt at the stake thousands of people (even though holding the Bible as their sacred book and Christ as the Messiah ) who differed only on certain other dogmas, or whose highest dignitaries of the Christian Church started the institution of Inquisition and who persecuted the Jewg’ll for centuries, should think twice before running down in unmeasured language Kautilya, who, two thousand years ago, recommended drastic remedies against enemies for the safety of the country (and not for holding differing religous ideas ).313 They should remember what barbarities were committed in the second world war in bombing populous cities at night and in the killing of hundreds of thousands of captives and others in gas chambers and otherwise.

Vol. III of H. of Dh. deals with theories about the origin of kingship and with the question whether and how far the king was elected (pp. 28 ff ), the theory of social contract (pp. 31-32), the divine right of kings (pp. 35-37), primogeniture and exceptions to it (pp. 41-44), necessity for the king to con trol his senses and cases where kings met death because of fail ing to curb their senses (pp. 53-55), existence of oligarchies or republics in ancient India (87-92), question whether there were in monarchies popular assemblies of elected persons (pp. 92-98 ), the checks and limitations on the monarch’s powers set out (pr. 96-98 ). K. P, Jayaswal and others have made great efforts to show that the monarch in the Arthasāstra was

10 बृहस्पत्युशनोक्तैश्च मन्त्रैर्मन्त्रविशारदाः । अथर्ववेदप्रोक्तैश्च याश्चोपनिषाद

PST 1975 AHOKITETTT #497977 1 TATA 251. 24. The subject is magmat: in verse 21 preceding. They refers to inaudibly mutter

jag om, Gayatri and similar holy texts. 211. Vide H. of Dh, Vol. V, pp. 932-3, note 1494 and pp. 1019-20 for the

persecution and expulsion of Jows in Europe and for detestable

methods and donds of the Inquisition. 212 Tahograremataff aufÊg aysia 1978gzifafaqat: 29

देशवेषशिल्पभाषाभिजनापदेशैः कुब्जवामनकिरातमूकबधिरजडान्धछअभिमा जातीयैरभिप्रेतैः स्त्रीभिः पुंभिक्ष परशरीरोपभोगेष्ववधातव्यः । अशात XIV. I. 1-2,

SOUNDTE

SOUNDED

14. The Arthueścīstro of Kutilya

233

a constitutional king and not an absolute ruler. That ques tion has been dealt with in H. of Dh. Vol. III (pr. 92-98 ). The present author does not agree with K. P. Jayaswal.

It is necessary to put together briefly some of the chief grounds on which the Arthasastra is assigned to about 300 B. C.

1. The unanimous tradition of numerous Sanskrit works and of Buddhist and Jain sources that Kautilya or Canakya helped Candragnta and that he wrote a treatise on Arthaśā. stra and the fact that no other Kautilya or Canakya, author of a work on A. or as the minister of an ancient king, in the first centuries of the Christian era has been known so far.

2. Kautilya is not chary of naming individual writers, schools and scaryote (in general). The last (ācāryāḥ ) he mentions about 53 times and differs from them 50 times. On VIII. 4 alone dealing with calamities due to fate such as con flagration, floods, diseases, famine and epidemics he mentions ācāryas twelve times and differs from them in all cases and on VII. 9 he differs from them seven times. He mentions the following schools. Ambhiyahi ( once on I. 17. 27 ), Āusunasah (7 times in all on 1. 2. 6, I. 15. 49, II. 7. 14, III. 6. 5, III, 11. **, III. 17. 4, X. 6. 1), lārāśarah ( I. 8. 7, I. 15-23, I. 17. 9. II. 7. 12, III. 1, 26, VIII. 3. 30 ), Bārhaspatyāh (I. 2. 4, I. 15. 48, II. 7. 13, III. 11. 46, III. 17. 13, X. 6. 2); Mānavah (1. 2. 2, I. 15. 47, II. 7. 11, III. 11. 45, III, 17. 3). Instead of Pārāśarā), Mysore ed. of Shamasastri reads Parāśarah’ in I. 8, I. 15. Kautilya mentions the views of the following individual writers, Kaunapadantin (1. 8. 14, I. 17. 15, VIII. 3. 47); Piśuna (1. 8. 11, . 15. 27, 1. 17. 12, VIII. 1. 33, VIII. 3. 39), Būhudantiputra ( 1. 8. 24 ); Bharadrāja ( I. 8. 1, 1, 15. 14, I. 17. 6, V. 6. 24, VIII. 1. 6, VIII, 3. 8, XII. I. 2.); Vāta vyñdhi ( I. 8. 6, 1. 17. 18, VII. 1. 3, VIII. 1, 53, VIII. 3 55 ); Viśālāksa ( 1. 8.3, I. 15. 18, I. 17. 7, VIII. 1. 19, VIII. 3. 24, XII. 1. 5). Of these, three names viz. Piśmua, Vātaryachi and Kaunapadanta appear to be nicknames. It may be pointed out that in the Sakuntala the ininister of Dusyanta is said to have been Piśuna, which literally means ( wicked or backbiter, ‘Piśunau khalasacakau’ says Amara ); some commentator say it is the name of Nārada. Kaunapadanta is said to be nickname of Bhisma by the Nayacanlrika and by Yogghaibh. Kunapa means a corpse and so Kaunapadanta would need

234

llistory of Dharnusāstra

one having teeth that emit i nasty smell like that of a dead body’. All these are mentioned in I. 8 and whenever all or some of them are mentioned, Bharadvāja is mentioned first and the others also occur in the same order as in I. 8.

It would be noticed that none of the famous Dharmasūtra authors such as Gautama, Āpastumba, Hirayya kesin, Baud hāyana, Vasistha is mentioned by the Kauṭiliya even in the Dharmasthiya and Kantakasodhana sections and many Adhikaranas. Therefore, it is probable that the Kauṭiliya is prior to them in point of time or inay be contemporaneous with some of them. Most of the Dharmasūtra writers are generally held to have flourished some centuries before the Christian era. In V.5. 10-11 certain ministers are named as having left the king’s service on seeing certain signs of his displeasure viz. Katyāyana, Kaninka Bhāradvāja, Dirgha Cārāyana, Ghotamukha, Kinjalka, Piśuna and Piśunaputra. Piśuna may be the same as the writer Piśuna mentioned above. Pisunaputra may be his son. Ghotakamukha is mentioned as an author in Kamasutra (I. 1. 4). The others also might have been authors on Nitiśnstra. Kaninka Bhāradvaja may be the same as the Bharad vāja mentioned above as a predecessor in the Artbaśāstra. Bhāradvāja is one of the expounders of Rājaśāstra mentioned in Sāntiparva 58. 3. Chap. 140 ( 71 verses ) of Santiparva is called Kaṇikopadeśa at the end. But in the verses at the start it is said to be a dialogue between Bharadvāja and king Satruñjaya of Sauvira.

3. The Arthaśāstra was composed at a time when Budd hism had not made much progress in India and was confined to monks. The only clear and definite reference to Buddhists is in III. 20. 16, where among other matters it is provided * for a Candāla touching an Arya lady, for one feeding Sākya, Ajivaka and others and Sūdra ascetics at rites in honour of Gods and Manes the fine shall be one hundred panas. The Buddha’s teaching spread only among monks and had not spread far and wide till Asoka’s reign. It’secured royal favour only under Asoka during whose reigo the third Buddhist Council was held about 247 B. C. The Dipavamsa ( XX. 20 ff) expressly states that the three pitakas and their corte mentaries were transmitted orally ( Mukhapatha ) and were reduced to writing in Ceylon in the reign of Vattagamani ( 29-17 B. C.). Buddhism was a State

Cani

FOUNDEO

inder KODITE

14. The Arthasāstra of Kautilya

235

and was in a flourishing condition in India from Kaniska’s times up to the first half of the 7th century A. D. (as the Hargacarita and Yuan Chwang’s travels show). Hence if the Arthaśāstra was composed in the 3rd century A. D. as Jolly and some others say it could not have afforded to treat the Buddhists monks with scant respect as it actually does.

4. The Arthnśāstra uses the word Rājā only (not Samrāt nor Sārvabhauma) for the ruler just as’ Asoka speaks about himself only us rājā in his edicts, though be appears to have ruled over the whole of India up to Mysore at least.

5. Some technical terins are cominon to A. and to Asoka’s edicts. A few of these may be mentioned here. Yukta (an officer ) iu A. II. 5. 16 ( Yuktopayuktutatpuruṣāṇām ), II. 8. 3, 23, II. 9. 33-34 and in Rock Edicts III and IV; Mahamātra ( A. I. 12. 4, V. 1. 5 and 15 uud in Rock Edicts VI and XII and in several other places ); Parisā (pariṣad, council of mini sters ) in R. E. IV ( parisāpi yutte ilapayissati ) and A. I. 15. 47-50 and 58; Purusāh ( subordinate officers under Yuktas and Upayuktas ) in A. II. 5. 16 und Pillar Edicts I, IV and VII; Pradestr (in A. IV. 1. ), a Magistrate ) and Prūdesika ( Rock Edict III, the exact connotation cannot be estublished). Some of these words occur in Panini also e. g. Yuktā occurs in Pān VI. 2. 66, Ayukta (in A. I. 15. 10 und 13, II. 6. 20 und Pān. 11. 3. 40 ); Ākarika (a ininer, A. II. 12. 20 ) and Dauva rika (in A. I. 12. 6, V. 3. 5, V. 6. 5 meaniny lead usher in & palace’) and Pan IV. 4. 69 ( tatra niyuktah ); Pūyini IV. 4. 70 shows that he was aware of many words ending in ‘agara’ (as in ‘agārāutit-than’) such as Bhindāgārika. The word

Vyusta ‘in A. 11. 6. 12 and II. 7. 31-33 deserves to be con sidered here. Pānini ( V. 1. 97 “Vyustidibhyosa’) provides for the formation of words like ‘Vaiyusta’ (meaning what is to be given or what is to be done at Vyusta’. The Vyustādigana has over a dozen words. The exact meaning of Vyusta is not clear. But, occurring as it does in A. 11. 6. 12 (rāja vargam, māsaḥ, pakṣah, divasasca vyustam, iti kuilah, after the regnal year, month, fortnight and day), Vyusṭa should mean time (ghaṭikā or muhurta &c.) after morning or sunrise. Vyust is a past participle from the root ‘us’ (1st conj. to heat) with ‘vi’ and apparently means the same thing as vyus (whidh occurs five times in Ry) and · Vyusti’ which occurs over thirty times in the Rgveda ( as Vyusṭau or Vyusṭișu ), often

not

286

in connection with Usas’ (as in Rg. II. 34. 12, III. 15.2, IV. 1. 5, IV. 45. 2, X. 41. 1 &c.) and once Vyus’ in connec. tion with both Umas and Surya (the Sun) in Rg. VII. 81, 2 (o Dawn, may we be endowed with food in the light of your self and of the Sun). In the inscriptions of Asoka at Brahma giri, Rupnath, we see various forms like ‘vivutthena’,

Viyuttha, Vyutthena, and vyuthena’ and there is great diveryence among scholars about the meaning.

6. A. is some centuries earlier than the Yāj. Smrti. In the first place, on inany points such as succession and inheri tance, Yūj. is far in advance of A. One decisive circumstanc is as follows. Yāj. ( I. 319-20 ) dealing with the regulations about royal grants of fields &c. provides that the grant should be inscribed on a piece of cloth (silken or other ) or on it copper-plate. A. in 11. 10 (śāsanādhikāra ) provides how a śāsana is to be written, but says not a word about inscribing it on a piece of cloth or a copperplate. This clearly indicates that the Yāj. Smrti was composed when the inscribing of royal grants or orders on copper lates had become common while K. shows uo kuowledge about this method and refers ouly to putruku (lent) in II. 10. 58 and in II. 17. 9 directs the superintendent of Kujiya (Forest produce) to collect leaves of Tāli, Tila and Bhurja ( Tālitālabhurjānāin patram). The earliest record on a copperplate so far discovered in India is the Sohāgpur plate which records an order issued by the Mahāmātras of Srivastī and which is placed by competent scholars like Fieet between 300 B. C. to 180 B. C. ( vide JRAS for 1907 pp. 509 and E. I. Vol. XXII p. 2 by K. P. Jayaswal). Another early copperplate is the Taxila copper plate inscription of Patika of the year 78 ( vide C. I. I. vol. II p. 23).

i For Kharosthi documents on silk of 1st century B. C. or A. D., vide J. G. J. R. I. Vol. X pp. 131-133 by Ratanchandra Agrawala.

1.7. . In dealing with the layout of the fortified capital (II. 4 ) the A, makes certain interesting remarks. In II. 4. 17-20 A. provides The king should cause in the centre of the capital…the.construction of enclosures for Aparajita, 213 Apra 213 अपराजिताप्रतिहत जयन्तवैजयन्तकोष्टान् शिववैश्रवणाश्विीमादिरागृहाणि च पुर .. मध्ये कारयेत् । यथोदशं वास्तुदेवताः स्थापयेत् । ब्राह्मेन्द्रयाम्यसैनात्यानि द्वाराणि । बहिः परिखायाः धनुःशतापकृष्टाश्चैत्यपुष्यस्थानवनसेतुबन्धाः कायाः ।

(Continued on the next page )

..

FOUNDEO

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

237

tihati, Jayanta and Vaijayanta, and temples of Śiva, Vaiśra vana, Asvins, Sri (the goddess of wealth) and Madirā (Durgā). He should also establish presiding deities of the dwelling places as enumerated. The city gates should be presided over by Brahmā, Indra, Yama and Senāpati (Skanda ). Outside (the city ) at the distance of 100 dhunus from the moat should be sanctuaries, holy places, groves and water dams and the deit! i of the quarters in the respective quarters. …… The habitat us for heretics, pasandas and cāndalas should be on the outskirts of the cremition ground’. ‘Aparājita’ means ‘invincible’ und ‘apratibata’ (irresistible ). But here these words stand for somc god or deity. Jayanta is the son of Indra and Vaija vanta is Indra’s palace, acc. to Amarasimha. Jayanta and Vaijayanta may mean victorious. But in this passage they mean some gol. The Malayalam com. holds them respectively to be Durgā (probably. it reads ‘Aparajita’), Viṣṇu; Subrahmanya and Indra. ‘Yathoddeśam’ appears to mean’as enumerated in the works of Vāstu pūjā (or Vastu śānti)’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 833-35. The word põrandalt frequently occurs in A. and generally means heretic or heretical monk. For example, iu I. 18. I A. provides that a prince under disfavour with the reigning king may secretly rob the corporation of beretics of their wealth. In III. 16. 38-10 A. provides in legal disputes the fines in posed may be paid off by beretical sūllure who possess vo cash nor gold by doing penance with fasts and vows according to their Owli practices except in case of Pirusya ( verbal and physical injurie:s ), theft, forcible seizure and adultery.215 Manu also ( in 1. 118 aud IV. 30 ) employs the words Pāṣanda and Paṣandin in the sense of heretical sect or monk. Adiparva 140. 63, Vana parva 188. 49, Anuśāsanaparva 23. 67 also employ the word in

( Continued from the previous page) यथादिशं च दिग्देवताः । … पापण्डचण्डालानां श्मशानान्ते वासः। अर्थ. 11. 4. 17-20 and 23. Acc. to Āsv. g!. I. ? the deities of the four quarters from the East to North are Indra, Yuma, Varuna aud Somit, . Sono speak of eight quarters. पाषण्डसङ्घद्रव्यमश्रोत्रियोपभोग्यं वा देवद्रव्यमान्य विधवाद्रव्यं वा गृहमनु प्रविश्य… BETTI o I. 18. 9. Vido also 11. 36. 11, 111. 16. 32–33, 39. विवादपदेषु चैषां यावन्तः पणा दण्डाः … राज्ञथरेयुः । अहिरण्य संधि पाषण्डाः साधवः । ते यथा स्वमुपवासवतंगराधयेयुः, अन्यत्र पारुष्यतयः

TIEATHEO PH: 1 III. 16. 38-40.

214

POOKA

215

Wan

238

the same sense as in Manu. But Asoka employs the word pāsunda in the sense of a religious order or sect and not in a derogatory sense. In Rock edict XII he says ‘King Priya darsin honours all pāsandas ( sandāni), all ascetics and householders with gifts and in various modes of honour’. In Rock Edict V. Asoka says he appointed officers called Mahā mātras when he had been crowned king thirteen years and that those high officers were concerned with all pasandas (all sects or denominations ) for the glorification of dhamma. This establishes that the word pusanda had been in use long before Asoka’s time. Iu Kautilya’s day, in the Mahābhārata and in Madu the word had been used in a derogatory sense. Dr. B. M. Barua (in ‘Inscriptions of Asoka, Part II. p. 255) holds that

pāsaṇda’ is a corruption of pārṣada’. I am sorry that I cannot agree with him. Pariṣad (later parṣad also ) is a very ancient word. It occurs in the Rgveda (III. 33. 7) in the literal sense ( viz. crowding or sitting round ). In the Br. Up. VI. 2. 1 it occurs in the usual sepse (an assembly of learned men or of men ). Panini provides that from Parisad’ one gets the derivative pārisadya’( IV. 4. 101 ) or pārisada’ by Yuguvibhāya. It is difficult to see how from pārṣada (which simply means ‘member of u pariṣad’) we can get pāsanda (phonetically as well as semantically ), when it means a heretical sect (or even any sect or denomination ). The word Pārsada is employed in the Nirukta ( I. 17) in the sense of Prātiśākhyas’ (padaprakstini sarvacaraṇānām pārsadani ).

The establishment of the temples of Śiva and Vaisravana (i. e. Kubera ) was in vogue even in the times before the Vārtikas on Pin. and the Mahābhāṣya and the Mahābhārata. While commenting on Pan. VI. 3. 26 ( devatādvandve ca ) and the 2nd Vārtika thereon ( Brahma-prajāpatyādinām ca ), the examples given by the Mahābhīṣya are Brahmaprajāpati, Śiva vaibravanau, Skandavisākhau. The worship of Vaisravana and Viśākha declined later on. Therefore, when the A. mentions them together it follows that its age may be at Jeast that of the Vārtikakāra (i. e. about 300 B. C.). The Vana parva ( 274. 15-17) states that Kubera is lord of wealth, immortal, a Lokapāla and a friend of Śiva and king of Yaksas.

8. Another indication of the age of the A. is that in lll. 14. 28-33 it provides for the distribution of the fees in ARE

HASTITLES

FOUNDED

14. The Arthasröstra of Kautilya

239

stoma210 and other solemn vedic sacrifices (keratu ) for the priests, if any, falling ill at different stages of the Soma sacrifices and mentions the Bphagpatisava. When Buddhism was in the ascendant from the days of Asoka and Kaniska till several centuries after the Christian era, such elaborate provisions about Vedic sacrifices like Agnistoma and Bșhas. patisava in a work on government and adininistration are not likely to have been set out. That leads to the inference that the work was composed before Buddhism came to be in the ascendant and when Vedic sacrifices were still very common. Manu (in VIII. 206-207) provides in a general way how the fees are to be distributed among priests in a religious cere inony wheu one of them has to stop from taking part in any religious rite and leaves it to the other priests what was to be given to the one that leaves in the middle of a religious rite, but does not mention any solemn Vedic sacrifice.

This passage is quoted from K. in the Vyavahārasiromani of Nārāyana, who was a pupil of the famous Vijñāneśvara ( published by T. R. Chintamani in Annals of Oriental Research, Madras, at p. 29 ) and in the Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja, pp. 284-5 (published by the Adyar Library ).

IX. The provisions about almanacs in the Arthaśāstra 11. 20 (on ‘Deśakālamana ) are of great importance on the question of its probable date. K. states that a Muhūrta217 is

…

…… ….

……………………………..

..

218 अमिष्टोमादिषु च ऋतुष दीक्षणादूर्ध्व याजकः सन्नः पञ्चममंशं लभते । सोम

विक्रयादूर्व चतुर्थमंशम् । मध्यमोपसदः प्रवर्योद्वासनादृवं द्वितीयमंशं लभेत । मुत्ये प्रातःसवनादूचं पादोनमंशम् । माध्यन्दिना सवनावं समग्रमंशं लभेत । नीता हि दक्षिणा भवन्ति । बृहस्पतिसववर्ज प्रतिसवनं हि दक्षिणा दीयन्ते । तेनाहर्गणदक्षिणा व्याख्याताः । सन्नानामादशाहोरात्राच्छेषभृताः कर्म कुर्युः, भन्ये वा स्वपत्ययाः । अर्थ. III. 14. 29-34. सन्न ( past participle of सद् to sit) appears to insan confined to a place, ill or incapacitated

The word occurs in III. 14, 19 and 21 in connection with agri. cultural workers and trailers. The Brhaspatisava is to be performed after one performs tbo Vijapeya sacrifice. vide H. of Db. vol. II. p. 1211. Jaimini (IV. 3.

29-31 ) bolds that it is an anys of Vājapoya. 217

द्विनाडिको मुहूर्तः । पञ्चदशमुहूर्तो दिवसो रात्रिश्च चैत्र चाश्वयुजे मासि भवतः । ततः परं त्रिभिर्मुहूतैरन्यतरः षण्मासं वर्धते इसते चेति । अर्थ. II. 36-38 ; compare विष्णुपुराण II. 8. 59. धर्मवृद्धिरपा प्रश्थः क्षपाहास उदग्गनी। दक्षिणे तो विपर्यस्तौ षण्मुहूर्त्ययनेन तु ॥ 7th verse of वेदाङ्गज्योकि ( ऋग्वेद ) and 8th of याजुषवेदाम-ज्योतिष,

240

History of Dharmaśāstrat

equal to two nāļikās, that day and night are each of 15 muhurtas in the months of Caitra and Asvayuja (i.e. Asvina), that thereafter each of the two increases up to three more muhirtas in six months and is reduced to the same extent218 in the next six. At the close of the chapter A. states that at the end of two years and a half an intercalary month is requir ed in grisma (summer) and another intercalary month on the expiry of five years. The first statement that there is a difference of six muhurtas between the longest and the shortest day i. e. the two are respectively of 36 and 24 ghaṭikas, is the same as that of the Vedārga Jyotisa. Western scholars place the Vedaiya Jyotisa at about 400 B. C. The present author would like to place it some centuries earlier. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. part 1 p. 505 note 732. The statement that two intercalary months were allowed in five years was also the rule, according to the Mahabharata ( Virītaparva 52. 3-4 ) and the Yājusa Vedāngajyotina ( verse 35 ).

It is really not necessary to adduce further evidence for establishing the proposition that the Arthasastra follows the rules laid down by the Vedārga-Jyotisa about the almanac, that it does not rely on the rules laid down in the Siddhantas about almanacs and that, therefore, it should be assigned to 300 B. C. and not so late as 300 A. D. Some points may ve be stressed.

X. The Arthaśāstra does not thoronghly follow Panini’s terminology. For example, it defines parla as ‘Vurpasarghāta 219

218 एवमर्धतृतीयानामब्दानामधिमासकः । ग्रीमे जनयतः पूर्व पश्चान्दान्ते च

1991 37efo 11. 20. 66. This is quoted in folet ( p. 113 ) of जीमूतवाहन from ज्योतिःशास्त्र. पश्चमे पश्चमे वर्षे द्वौ मासावुपजायतः । एषामभ्यधिका मासाः पञ्च च द्वादशक्षपाः । त्रयोदशानां वर्षाणामिति में वर्तते Hla: 1 fatizia 52. 3-4; TT TTTT HITTA EN A Eau i Jant 25 for ITHTARI I TITATS Tifaa vorso 35 ( Hof Dh. 8. Vol. V. part I p. 662, n. 1022 ). Vide Dr. Fleot in JRAS for 1914 at p. 998 ( on the Taxila Inscription of the year 1:36 ) for the views

of Dr. Marshall and his own. 219 वर्णसङ्घातः पदम् । तच्चतुर्विध नामाख्यातापसर्गनिपाताश्चेति । तत्र नाम

HATATT I 34247724Thi fanat: 137230 11. 10. 14–16, 19. Compare प्रारीश्वरान्निपाताः । चादयोऽसत्वे । प्रादयः । उपसर्गाः क्रियायोगे । पाणिनि I. 4. 58–59. Coinpare E I. i Jariah aceh Talabra: ख्याते चोपसर्गनिपाताश्च । सवप्रधानानि नामानि ।

POOKE

FOUNDED

1917

14. The Arthaśāstru of krutilya

241

( a group of letters ), while Pānini defines it as ‘sup-tinatam padam’ (I. 4. 14 ) and further on A. follows the Nirukta’ in the four classes of padas and the definition of namun. If it had been composed five or six centuries after Pānini (i. e. about the 1st or 3rd century A. D. as some scholars suppose ) it would have most probably followed Pānini completely. Therefore, the Arthaśāstra must, be held to have been com posed at a time when Pānini’s work had not become univer: sally accepted or relied upon.

XI. Many of the words used by the Arthaśāstra in the matter of Govt. and administration are in accord with Pānini. For example, the Arthaśāstra emphasises that the king is there for good goverument (vide p. 229 above for prajāsukhe sukham rājñah’). Panini also provides that the word ‘rājanvān’ (VIII. 2. 14 ) is used when there is a good king and that otherwise the world is ‘rājavan’. Many words about officers found in A. are mentioned by Panini either in sūtras or in the ganas. For example, A. has the longest adhikarana called ‘adhyaksa pracāra! Pānini (VI. 2. 69 ) provides Vibhāsk dhyakse!. Kautilya mentions about twentyfive kinds of departments and their adhyaksas Pānini (III. 2.21 ) provides for the word ’lipikara’. A. employs the word ’lipi’in I. 5. 7, 1. 12. 11. Panini has two sūtras ’tatra niyuktah’ and ‘agar āntāt-than’(IV. 4. 69-70 ), while A. employs such words as *Dauvārika and Akarika ‘(II. 12. 20 ‘ākare niyuktah’), ‘Kosthāgārika’ (from Kosthāgāra in A. II. 4; 8), Bhāndāgārika ( from ‘bhāndāgira in A. II. 4. 10). Froin the word ‘atyaya’ (which is included in the Vinayadi-gana by Panini V. 4. 34 ) we get’atyayika ‘( which occurs in A. I. 15. 58, V. 5. 2) and also in Asoka’s Rock Edict VI (acayika ) and there is Vina yadhikārikam (in A. I. 1). The Vinayādigana has several words (from ‘samayācāra’ we yet sāinayācārika’ which occurs in A. V. 5 as the name of the chapter and Āp. Dh. S.

I. 1. 1. 1).

Two of the most difficult problems concerning the Artha Śāstra are its relation to Manusmrti and to the Mahābhārata. As regards the Manusmrti it would be shown below that some verses and half verses are identical in both A. and the Manusmrti. The extant Manusmrti refers by name to a few predecessors, such as Atri, Ututhyatanaya y e Gautama ), Saunaka and Bhrgu (in Manu III. 16 Rand Vasistha ( Manu VIII. 140 ) and states the views of Svayam

I242

bhuva Manu ( IX. 158 ) or simply of Manu ( as in VIII. 279). The A. mentions the views of Mānavāḥ’ several times but those views do not all correspond to the statements in the Manus’mrti. In the Dharmasthiya section the A. often agrees with Mann and Yāj. but sometimes Yāj. does not agree with A. Compare Manu VIII. 279 with A. III. 19. 8, but Yaj. II. 215 differs. In the present author’s opinion Yāj. is much later than the A. and the extant Manusmrti also is later than it, though, it is nearer in time to A. The extant Manusmrti is a revised version of the original Manusmrti made between 200 B. C. to 200 A. D.

Vas. 19. 17 cites a śloka (’na bhinda-kārsapana &c’) as a Mānava sloka (in the Upendravajrā metre ) not found in extant Manu. Verses are cited as Manu’s by comparatively early writers like Viśvarūpa ( first half of 9th century A. D. ), but they are not found in the extant Manu e. g. the verse

• Dhanam yad-yāgasilānām ‘cited by him on Ynj. III. 252 as Manu’s is not so found.

As regards the Mahabharata, the problem is far more difficult. As shown above the Santiparva (in 58. 1-3 ) names certain expounders of rājuśiīstra, almost all of whom are named by A. and criticized. Another noteworthy fact is that the Mahābhārata in its several parvans mentions the views of Manu (simply ) or of Svāyambhuva or Prācetasa dozens of times e. g. Svāyambhuva occurs in.

Ādi-73. 8-12 (compare Manu III. 20-21, 23, 24-25 ); this last is same as Manu III. 25; Ādi 120. 36 ( on 12 kinds of sons ), Vanaparva (180. 34-35 ) same as Manu ( II. 29, 170, 172 ), Udyoga 37. 1., slinti 21. 11-12; Anu jāsana 114. 12.

Prācetasa Mann–two verses from Rājadharmas in Santi 57. 43-45, same two verses in Udyogaparva 33. 79-80, Anu Sāsana 46. 1-2 ( Manusmṛti III, 54 ).

Manu alone-in Ādiparva 41. 31, 74. 99, Sānti 56. 23-25 (last two verses as occurring in Manu’s dharmas, one’adbh yognir’ occurs in Manusmrti IX. 32 and in Udyoga 15. 34 ); Santi 78.31 (brahmalokajitah svargyān…tān-Manur-abravit), 112-17 and 121. 10-12, 152, 14, 265.5 (on ahimsa); Anuśāsalt 44.18, 44.23, 47.35 ( śtistra of Manu), 61. 34-35 (Chaturtham matain-asmākam Manoh Srutvānusāsanam ); compare Mapa VIII. 18 for same view ); Anusāsaua 65. 3, 67.19 (Manu IH

• Рooн

191

.

14. The Arthuśāstra of Kuutilya

243

first half same ), 68. 31, 115. 52-53; Vana parva 32. 39 ( karta vyam eva karmeti Munor escu viniscayo? ), 35. 21 ( Mapu on RĀjudharma ).

In the preceding reference is made only to passages of the Epic in which Manu is expressly named. But there are hundreds of verses that are common to the Mahābhārata and the extant Manu-smrti. Dr. Būhler in his Introduction to the translation of the Manusmrti (S. B. E. Vol. 25 ) states that in three parvaus alune (Vana, Sānti and Anuśāsana) 260 verses are found in Manu also ( Intro. p. LXXXIII-XC) and his conclusin was that the Mahābhārata influenced the final redaction of Manu.

The present Mahābhārata contains many matters that are very much like those in the Arthuśāstra. The eulogy of clandu occurs in A. ( I. 4.8.-19), in Sāntiparva (chap. 15 and 121 ) and also in Mauu VII, 17-31 and some of the verses in the latter two are almost the same. The word ’labubu praśamana ’ occurs in Santi 45.10 and A. XIII. 5. In A. VI. 1.1 tbe elements of the State ure said to be seven and tbe same is the idea in Sūdtiparva 5 and Manu IX. 294. For the antiquity of the Itibāsa and Purana, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 816 ft. In the Pāriplava that was listened to for a year in Aśvamedha, Itibāsa and Purana were recited on the 8th and 9th days (vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 866 ). Therefore, it follows that some legendary lore like that in the Mahābhārata existed in the Vedic age. It seems that Epic poems were probably the earliest of the three viz. the Mahabharata, Dharm sāstra and Arthasāstra. But it should be noted that the extant Mahābhāratu several times refers to Dharmaśāstras as in Vanaparva 207. 83, 293. 34, 313. 105, śānti 167. 4, Anuśāsana 9. 6-7. These verses might be later additious.

We can see from Pāṇini that the epic and some of its principal characters and some episodes were known to him e.g. he knows Bhārata and Mahabharata (VI. 2. 38 ), Yudhisthira (VIII. 3.95), Vāsudeva and Arjuna ( IV. 3.98 ); ‘Vasudevaka’ would mean Vāsudevah bhaktirasya’ and Patanjali expressly says that Vasudeva is the name of Bhagavat (Vasudevasab dasya pūrvanipātam vaksyāmiti, athavā naisā ksatriyakhya, sanjñaikā tatrabhavatah). The Aśvalāyanagrhya (a Tark pana III. 4) nientions Bhārata-Mahābhārata-dharmo cāryāh’. The Mahābhāṣya (ou VIIL 1, 15 ) giver dyan

5.-

214

Yudhisthirarjunau’ (and not ‘dvandvam Yud.’ as an example on Vārtika I (as they are not well-known as being extremely sahacarita’ like Skanda and Viśākha, although they are brothers; vide Vārtika 7 bhrātusca jyāyasah’ on Pār. II. 2. 34 ; • Duryodhana’ and · Duḥsa sana’: seem to be known at least to the Vārtikakāra (vide Mahābhāṣya on Vārtika on Pāh. III. 3. 130 ). The name Asvatthāinan is derived in a Kārikā (sthāmno lugajināt tathā ) on Vārtika ( on IV. 3. 60). Vārtika 6 dealing with

· Akhyānam’ and Vārtika 15 on Pān. III. 1. 26 refer to the story of Kamgavadha and Balibandha and the Mahābhāṣya on the last states that in dramas and pictures ‘Kamsavadha ? and Balibandha’are exhibited, although both these events occurred long ago ( katham vartamānakālatā Kamsam ghāt yati Balim bandhayatiti cirahate Kamse cirabaddhe ca Balau)’ and further some are shown in the dramatic or pictorial pre sentations as devotees of Kaisa and some as Vasudeva bhakta. The Mahābhāṣya on Vārtika 2 on Pāụ. III. 2. 111 quotes jaghāna Kariisam kila Vasudevah, ‘Kielhorn Vol. II. p. 119). The story of Kaṁsa’s defeat and death before the Rājasuya of Yudhisthira is mentioned in Sabhāparva 14. 30-34 and in Udyoyaparva 128. 38-40. It follows therefore, that the Mahabharata along with at least some of its akhyānas was well-known to Panini and the Vārtikakāra. The Mahābhāṣya (Kielhorn, Vol. I. p. 426 on Pān. II, 2. 24) quotes

Saṅkarsana-dvitiyasya balam Kronasya vardhatām’ and “ prāsāde dhana-pati-rāma-keśavānām’, thereby showing that Sarkarsana or Balarāma and Krsna were brothers ( Kielhorn I. p. 436 on Pān. II. 2. 34 ).

Pāyini and the author of the Vārtikas flourished as shown above (pp. 75-79 ) respectively about 450-400 B. C. anii 300-250 B. C. Therefore, the Mahābhārata and some legends must be held to have come in vogue not later than 450 B. C. The references in the Arthaśāstra (noted below ) to the stories in the Mahabhārata need not lead to the A. being assigned to a date later than 300 B. C.

Janamejaya is said to have been guilty of brahmuhatyā (killing of a brāhmana ) unintentionally and he is said to have gone to sage Saunaka Indrota who instructed him as to the actions that would free him of the great sin (in sānṭiparva, Chap. 150-152 ). Aila, son of Ilā ( who was both mother and father ), is Purūravas that ruled over thirteen dvipas (COM

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya

245

tinents :) and yet deprived (through greed), brāhmaṇas of their jewels ( valuables, ratnas ) and was cursed by great suges and perished ( Adiparva 75. 18-22). That Yudhisthira and Nala engaged in gambling is mentioned by A. in VIII.3.43. The story of Nala (and Damayanti, his queen ) is narrated at great length in the Vanaparva (chap. 53–79) and is one of the very popular and fascinating stories in the Mahābhārata. In the extant epic Puskara is said to have been the brother of Nala (Vana parva 50. 4 ff’) and won in the gombling bout, while A, states that it was Jayatsena that defeated Nala in gambling. Nala is stated in the epic to have been the son of Virasena and Nala’s young son’s name was Indrasena. It is therefore likely that A. is correct and the epic story was tampered with slightly later. In the extant Karna parva ( 91. 13 ) it is again affirmed that Nala was defeated in gambling by Puskara. Yudhisthira was defeated in gambling with Duryo dhana and Sakuri (Sabhāparva, Chup. 58.77). In A. I. 8. several kings are mentioned as having serished through one of the six fatal vices ( Kamu, Kopa &c). Duryodhana perished 230 (A. I. 6. 8) through pride by refusing to restore to the Pando vas ever as little ( of the kingdom ) as would be pierced by the tip of a sharp veedle (Udyoga parva ). The story of Dambhodbhava mentioned in A. I. 6. 9 occurs in Udyoga parva (.99. 5-41 ), le being humbled by the great sage Nara by dis charging at him only reeds.

The story of Arjuna also called Kirtavirya or Sahasrār juna ) king of the Haihayas and ruler at Māhismati occurs several times in the Mahabharata (viz, in Vanaparva 115. 9ff, Sānti 49.35ff, Amuśāsana 153. 3 ff. and Āsvomedhika Chap. 29 ) and Santipurva ( 46.53 ) states that Kārtavirya and his sons and descendants were killed by Parasurama because of his haughtiness towards Jamadagni (his father). In the Raghuvamsa ( VI. 38-40) Kalidasa gives a grand description of Kārtavīrya’s prowess. The story of Vātapi and Agastys (referred. to in A. I 6.10 ) occurs in the Rāmāyana and also in the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 98-99 ). For Ambarisa vide above and Santiparva 29. In A. XIII. 3. 54-55 reference is made to a secret agent with a shaved head or with matted hair

220

gaita yaid ‘raite znalaotlety Faircito tra i T ATRE hivi HLA: 75919 fa il gelato 127. 25 ; the same wordo CSUE. JÖTTO 58. 18 (uuly Alite for arata ).

1917

246

and giving oneself out as a devotee of Saṅkarsana, overreach ing robbers by adininistering a stupefying liquid and attack ing them. Saṅkarṣuna or Balarāma ( elder brother of Krona ) is described in the Mahābhārata (Udyogaparva 157. 19-20) as Madaraktāntalocana’ (whose eyes were red with intoxi cation ).

K. (in IV. 8.12 ) states that Animāndavya declared him self to be a thief, though not a thief, through fear of the pain of torture. In the epic it is said that he remained silent when questioned ( Adiparva 107.9). He is also referred to in Adi 63. 92-93 (Sūle protaḥ purāṇarsiracoras-cauraçankaya ) and

108. 6-8.

From the above discussion about the references to the Mahābhārata and its stories and characters in Panini, Patañjali and in Kautilya’s work it is clear that the A. knew not only the main story of the great epic and its chief characters but several episodes also.

As regards Purānug, the A. is very sparing about references to them. In V. 6.47 (which is a verse) there is reference to Itihūsa and Purānu. Other references to Purūnas such as in I. 5. 14 (Purana being included under Itihāsa) and in 111.7.29 (about Paurāṇika Sūta and Māgadha) might be interpolations. The Upaniṣads speak of Itihisapurāļa as a compound or as separate words in Chandogya Up. VII. 1. 2 and 4 and VII.7.1 and Brhadāranyaka II. 4. 10, IV. 1, 4, 1V.5.11. Vide, for the history of Purāṇas from ancient times onwards, H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 816-825 and the four or five stages in the evolution of Puranas pp. 853-55 of the same Vol. Kautilya seems to have known the Purāṇas. He says (111.7.29 ) that sūtu and magaclh« of the Puranas are quite different from members of the mixed castes called sūted and magadha and includes Purāṇa (1. 5 ) among the subjects of royal study grouped under the head of itihcsl.

Kautilya exhibits a wonderful kuowledge of herbs and drugs and Dr. Jolly thinks that his duteria Medioa is more extensive than even Susruta’s. But the dates of Caraka and Susruta are far from being settled and no approximately cer. tain conclusion can be drawn from the drugs mentioned in the Kauṭiliya. Kautilya speaks of ’ rasada’ (one who administers.

21

tcriol Feat: Aparate AHTRT77: 1

FOUN

19

14. The Arthuośāstru of Kautilyrı

247

mercurial poison ) and prescribes banishment for those who trade in or administer ‘rasa’ for money in order to do away with a person secretly ( IV. 4. 17-18 ). In 11. 13 he speaks of gold that is ‘rasa-vidilha’ (amalgamated with mercury ) and in II. 12 of liquids containing gold ( rasāļ kājcanikāḥ ) and of Hinguluka. Dr. Jolly thinks that this knowledge of metal lurgy and alchemy is of Graeco-Syriac origin and so the Kauṭiliya is a work of the third century A. D.

It is of great importance to note that Kautilya lays down (11.4 ) that in the midst of the fort were to be constructed the temples of Śiva, Vaisravana, the Asvins, Lakṣmi and Madiri ( Durgā ? ) and niches were to be set apart for Aparajita, Apratihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta and that the tutelary deities of the gates were to be Brahmā, Indra, Yama and Senāpati (i. e. Skanila ). We know from the Mahābhāṣya??? ( Kielhorn, Vol. II. p. 429) on Pāṇini ( V. 3. 99 ‘jivikārthe cāpanye’) that the Mauryas set up images out of greed for money and that in its day images of Śiva, Skanda and Visakha were worshipped.

The foregoing discussion clearly shows that the Kauṭiliya has certainly an ancient atmosphere about it, and that all that has so far been gathered from it agrees with its traditional date of 300 B. C. and no cogent arguments have been yet brought forward that would compel us to assign it a date later than the above by six centuries.

Two commentaries on the Kautiliya have been bronght to light so far, one composed by Bhattasvāmin being called Pratipada pañcikā and the other the Nayacandrika of Mādha vayajvan. Both are fragments. The first was published in the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society ( 1925 1926, vol. XI and XII) by Messrs. K. P. Jayasval and A. Banerji-sastri. The com, is incomplete and begins with the 8th adhyāya of the 2nd adhikarana and reaches up to the 36th adhyāya of the adhikarana. The commentary on the whole work must have been very extensive, as the portion already printed on a part of the 2nd adhikarana alone occu pies 214 pages. This commentary quotes the explanations of

222

7024 page Tato a farzafa Para: For fara fram कारणम् । मौर्यैर्हिरण्यार्थिभिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिताः । भवेत्तासु न स्यात् । मास्त्वता संप्रति पूजार्थास्तासु भविष्यति । महाभाष्य,

777777777:17

248

previous commentators in the words ‘‘anye’, ‘apare’. It quotes several slokas of Brhaspati on the blemishes of dia monds and on prakcśc-taskuras. The commentary Naya candrikā contained in Dr. Jolly’s edition (Lahore ) also is incomplete and begins with the 7th adhyāya of the 7th adhi karana and breaks off in the 4th adhyāya of 12th adhikarana. It also refers to the views of its predecessors in the words. ‘kecit’ &c. ( vide pp. 35, 61, 62, 104, 115, 131, 191 ). It discusses various readings (pp. 136, 183, 188, 193 &c. ).

Dr. Shamasastri includes in his edition 571 sūtras attri buted to Canakya. Their relation to the Kautiliya is a subject which requires careful investigation. In my own opinion they are later than the Kautiliya. It would be beyond the scope of this work to enter into details. Vide Dr. Jacobi’s article in Indian Historical Quarterly, rol. III., pp. 669-676.

There are several niti collections attributed to Canakya and published several times in different parts of India. All. of them are later than the Kauṭiliya and are compilations of maxims and fine sayings. One of them the Canak ya–rājaniti śāstra ( publisherl in Calcutta Oriental series, 1921, 2nd edi tion ) contains 660 verses and was compiled under Bhojarāja. Several other compilations pass under the names Vpadha Cāmakya, Laghu-Cāvakya &c. All these are passed over here from considerations of space and utility.

Dr. Sternbach has devoted much labour and time to the several works published under the name of Canakya. Those interested may read the following: J., A. 0. S. Vol. 76. pp. 115-130 ( Cānakya’s aphorisms in the Hitopadeśa pussa ges ), J. A. O. S. Vol. 77 pp. 26-31, 107-115, 166-183 ), J. A. 0. S. Vol. 79, pp. 233-254 ( Māpavadharmasastra verses in Canakya’s compendia ), JAOS. Vol. 83, pp. 30-66 ( Mahā bhārata verses in Cānakya’s compendia ), ABORI Vol. 37, pp. 58-110, ABORI Vol. 42, pp. 99-122 ( Tibetan Rājaviti Śāstra ), Vishreshvaranada Indological Journal I. pp. 66-77. ( verses from three anthologies examined ).

A few matters may be emphasized here that make the K. A. unique in some respects.

Even in the Vedic age there were high functionaries and officers of state and their names slightly differed in different

STAT “GÓN

.

A

FOUN

to

14. The Arthusiastirit of houpilyo

249

Vedic works. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III, pr. 111-112* for the eleven rutna18 or rutnins ( besides the king ) with reference to the Rājasiya. Later on these functionaries were called Tirthas which are referred to in Sabhpurva V. 38, Ayodhya kānda ( 100. 36, Bom. ed., 94. 30 Cr. ed. Baroda ), Santiparva 69. 52. The Arthaśāstra ( I. 12. 6 ) names these and in 1, 12. 20 states that they are 18 in mumber. The Arthasśāstra not only names the 18 functionaries but also gives a very interest ing classification of these along with their cash salaries per year ( in V. 3). Some of them may be set out here. Acc. to K. A. V. 30. 2 the sacrificial priest, the preceptor (acārya ), minister ( mantrin), the purohita (chaplain), the comman der-in-chief, the Yuvarāja ( crown prince ), the king’s mother and tlie crowned queen should receive 48000 ( panas ); the chief palace usher, the chief palace guard, the director of labourers, the gılministrator ( or collector ) of taxes and the Director of stores should receive 24 thousand; the prince’s, the mothers of princes, the Nayaka ( commandant of the forces or police in the capital ), the julge (in the capital ), the Director of factories, the council of ministers, the provin cial officer and the officer in charge of the frontiers should l’eceive 12000. It would be noticed that the Mantrin (chief minister ), the Purohita, Senapati nel Yuvarāja are among the most important and most highly paid officials of the king, The Purohitu was a very important and honoured person even in the Ryveda. Agni is called Propulitre and revij in the very first verse of the Rgvedu. The Aita reyn-brāhmana says that the Purohita is half the self of the Ksatriva ( the King ) in :34. 8 ( ardhātmo ha vā esa ksatrivasya yuturohitab ) and ’the goils do not partake of the foorl offered by a king who has no purohita; therefore a king about to offer a sacrifice should choose a brāhmana as purohita’s Ait. Br. 40.1 ). Acc. to Kautilya the purohita perfurmeil both spiritual and secular

Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III p. 112 n. 147 whare the original witra is quoted and somo of the words are explainoil. l’ido I. 11. 11. rol. V pp. 780-783 for an article on sularios, and allowances in Kamiliya. It should be noticed that the Nijaki in '. 3. he is mucli inferior to Sunapati, but in X. 6, 45 ( which donle with neturl array of ariny in battle and the officers theroin ) sonipinti menny simply vommander (of ten palikirkt) and Siryakin monns A command who has ten commandery undor him. The l’arcatantra (in tbaina on, of 1936, p. 142) relatos how Nārudn asked Yudhisthira (latio Mahabharata ) questions about the eighteen tirthny in the words ‘Kac-id.-agtid ngānyosu …… Cārakaib’, which cour in both opter

FOUNDET

250

History of Dhurutsāstra

functions, since Artha’ X. 33. 332 provides that the king should make the mantrin and purohita to accompany him in battle and to eucourage the soldiers by lwelling upon the excellence of the array ( vyūha ) of troops in battle (and in X. 3. 44 ) the assistants of the purohita should speak ( to the soldiers ) about the acts of sorcery and black magic ( undertaken by them ). The Senapati ( commander-in-chief) held a purely secular office and in II. 3. 33-34 K. states his qualifications, duties and functions, and in X. 3. 45 provides that the Senā pati should acıdress the soldiers of the army after they are made well-disposed by the payment of money and the besto wal of honours and should offer to pay one hundred thousand panus to him who would kill the enemy king, 50 thousand for killing ( in battle ) the Senāpati or prince of the opposing army and lastly by offering double wages and gift of whatever il soldier may seize from the opposing army. It may be noted that K. provides ( in V. 3. 28-29 ) that of those that die on duty the sous and wives shall receive food and wages and their minor children, olid men and sick persons should be shown favour ( should be helped ).

The king’s priine duty was to offer security and pro tection to the subjects. Ap. Dh. S. (II. 10. 26. 4-8 ) pro vides that the king should appoint for the protection of the subjects in villages and cities jersons of the first three varṇas, pure as to money and truth-loving and the assistants (purusas ) of those also should be possessed of the same virtues and that the king should arrange to guard a city against thieves for one yojan in all directions and a village for a kroza and they should re-imburse what is stolen with. in those limits Kilutilya makes an approach to the welfare state in IV. 3. 1–2, where he calls upon the king to protect the country from eight great calamities viz, fire, foods, disease (epidemic), famine, rats, wild elephants (and similar animals ), serpents and evil spirits (or demons) and he provides reme dies for these and arlds that in all such cases the king should favour the afflicted (people ) like a father (sarvatra copa hatān pitevānugļhniyat ). The Dharmasūtras and Smrtis also mention certain persons as not liable to pay taxes223 e. g. 22337**: 14. 17aquiat a fia: 1 SAT2128 019 auta: 1917

विद्यार्था वसन्ति । तपस्विनश्च ये धर्मपराः । शुद्रश्च पादवनेक्ता। अनामक PETITEETTI # 27877 TR I 377. Ħ. 11. 10. 28. 13-17

( Continued on the next page )

.

.

'

FOUNDE

1917

14. The Arthuśāstru of Kisutilya

251

& brāhmana learned in the Veda, the women of all the four Vulnas, boys that have not moustaches, even grown-up per sons as long as they stay with their teachers for instruction, persons performing austerities for religions purposes, a sidra washing the feet of persons of the other three varṇas i. e. ser ving them, persons blind, dezafundonub and diseased, ascetics who have no money because they are not allowed by śīstra to possess money. Vide also Vus. 19. 23-24, Manu VII. 133-34 aud VIII. 391-95. The Dhurmusūtras further say that it is the duty of the king to see that none in his realın perishes through hunger, disease, extreme heat or cold or of set, purpose.

Another striking matter is K’s references to confederacies of oligarchic or republican Slates ( in the 11th Adhikarana about sanghus, which covers less than three printed pages ). He states ( XI. 1. 1-3) securing an oligarchy on one’s side is better than securing an ariny or an ally; for sanghas being well-kuit become unassailable by enemies. Those ( sanghas.) that are friendly should be won over by ( a policy of) con ciliation and gifts, while those that are hostile ( should be dealt with ) by ( sowing ) disseusions (among them ) and by force. Then K. inentions two clusses of oligarchies (X1. 1. 4-5 ).224 One class of Sanghas existed in the countries of Kamboja and Surāstra and there were corporations of Ksatri yas also; all these maintained themselves ordinarily by igri. culture, trade and the profession of arms, while there were other sanghas vix. Licchavikas, Vijis, Mallakas, Mudrakus,

( Continued from the previous page) Vide 11. V. 2. 84 for derivation and meaning of 11134; MIRI. श्छन्दोधीते’ and आप.ध.सू.II. 3.6. 4 धर्मग वेदानामेकैका शाखामधीत्य श्री त्रयो भवति । न चास्य विषये क्षुधा रोगेण हिमातपाभ्यां वा संदेिदभावाद बुद्धिपूर्व a TT I 3779. 7. 4. 11. 10. 25. 11. HI VII. 131 avors that if a brāhmana learned in the Veda dios of hunger in the king’s domain, the king’s roalm perishes of hunger ( famine etc. ) in no time. सङ्घलाभो दण्डमित्रलाभानामुत्तमः । सङ्घा हि संहतत्वादधृष्याः परेषान . ताननु.

Turula #1421am , sanaa *CUET=914 H XI. 1. 46 काम्बोजसुराष्ट्रक्षत्रियश्रेप्याइयो वार्ताशस्त्रोपजीविनः । लिच्छिविक-वृजिक मल्लक 451- 76-9211713U TERTE IHifaa: 11 XI. 1. 4-5; este There is gront divergence about the exact meaning of … ATT. Vido K. P. Jayawal’s - Hindu Polity’ I. p. 62 dole l’ruf, Kanyle’s notes in his translation of li. 1. part II. pp. 56

24

POONA

1917252

History of Dhurnaśrīstru.

Kukuras, Kurus and Pancūlas, that maintained themselves on the title of rījun applied to them ( i. e. they were not culti vators of the soil aud mere soldiers, but they were chiefs or nobles ). K. A. in VIII. 3. 62-64 ) remarks that of the vices of gambliny and drinkiny, gambling is worse and that particularly, in the case of sigla and royal families, that the characteristics of a saigha viz. dissensions are caused by Gambling that lead to destructions; bence gambling is the greatest amony vices since it leads to weakness in governing

It is noteworthy that in the passage quoted in the foot. note about sanghas ( oligarchies ), K. I. separately mentions the Licchavikas and Vrjikas as saigh13, while some modern writers such as Dr. U. N. Ghoshal (p. 1 of his address in 1983 as President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal ) treut them as identical. Rhys Davids in ‘Buddhist Iudia’ (pp.19-26) suininarises the data about Indian Republics derived froin Buddhist works and points out that the Vajjians ( Vrjikas of K. A.) had eight confeilerite clans of which the Licchavis and the Videhas were inost important. The word śreni ( found in K. A. ) is very ancient, occurring as it does frequently in the sense of gronp, row, Hock’even in the Ryverla (e. g. in 1. 163. 10, III. 8.9) and gana’ occurs dozens of times in the Rg. The word saigla’ is mentioned frequently by Panini (in III. 3. 86 in the sense of gana’), V. 2. 52, V. 3. 114 ( referring to Ayudhajivi.-5a ghas’ among Vāhikas ). In V. 3. 115-117 Pānini inentions several Ayudha-jivisanghas such as Vārkenyah or Vrkāḥ, Piraśavah ( singular ) or Parśavah (plural), Yandheyah (or Yaudheyāh in V. 3. 117 ). In I. 6. 10 K. A. reports that the saigha of the Vranis perished by their foolhardiness in trying to assail Drai pāyaua. The Malābhārata does not mention the attack on Dyaipāyana. The Mahabharata states that the Yādavas included Vrouis, Andhakas, Bhojas ( Mausala parva I. 14 ) and also Kukuras ( Mausala 5. 2), Mausala (chap. 3 ) shows that Yūdavas fought ainong themselves and perished. In Sūnti 81. 25 Kinna is said to be the chief ( President ) of the Sangha of Vrsnis and in the Bhagavad-gita Kina is identi fied with Vāsudeva of the Vrsnis. In Santi 107 there is an interesting discussion as to the causes of the destruction of the Sanglas and Ganas. It is quite possible that K. me tlone Licchavikas and Vijikis separately on the analogy oMttre,

.

14. The Arthesestru of Kautilya

253

nyūyas called ‘yo-balivarda’ or brāhmana-parivrājaka’ for which see H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1347. For the Licchavis of Vaisāli, vide I. H. Q. XIX p. 98 und Jayaswal’s History p. 112. For the Mallas, vide · Buddhist India’ p. 26, D. R. Bhandarkar’s Ancient India’ pp. 51, 79. Kukura is associ. ated with Aparānta in the Nasik cave Inscription of Vasisthi putra Pulumivi and in the Junagad Inscription of Rudra. dām” (E. I. VIII. pp. 44, 60 ). The Yaudheyas are said to have been routeil by Rudradiman ( E. I. VIII. at p. 44 ). On Yuudheyas, vide Quarterly Journal of Mythic Society ( Vol. Silver Jubilee No. pp. 114-116 ) and Dr. Altekar’s paper on ‘Yaudheyas’ in U. P. Historical Society’s Journal Vol. 16 pp. 52-57 and Panini IV. 1. 178 119 prācyn-Bhargūdi yau.beyāilibhyuh’. The Bylint-surbita (IV. 25, XIV. 28, XVI. 21 ) reiers to Yuudheyas and Arjunayanas. Vide Karna Jarvan 5. 48 and Subhisi 52. 14-15 for Yuuilheyas. .

Another distinctive feature of K’s work is the division of the urdministration into two branches, viz. the rural area (junc pullie ) and the Duryi ( cepitil or urban area ) each with distinct officers and duties. The tirst was in charge of the Sunshartr and the Pradestr ( K. A. II. 6 and 35, IV.1.1) and the urbau area ( Durm) under the Nāyuriku335 (city Superintendent ) as stated in K. A. II. 36. 1 ( samāhurtrvan. nigariko pagaram cintiyet ), the last having to look after the city (or capital ). The city or Cipital was divided into four wards, each under an officer called Sthanika: un officer called Ciopa was to look after ten families or twenty or forty families and was to find out the total nunber of persons, men and women (described ) according to caste, gotra ( family name ) and occupation and also their income and expenditure. Numer ous details about regulations and fines to be imposed by the Nagarika are provided, which are passed over here. As regards the rural area the Sameharty was to form it into four divisions, (place euch division under an officer called sthānika and officers called yopas under the directions of sthānikas, were to look after groups of five or ten villages, prepare registers fixing the boundaries of villages, l’egisters of the

225

‘FITCIT 5.211-patontit: 1 11. IV. 2. 128. 2177# (from 7077 ) meang one loading a bad lifo (am : ) or one who is an ngok ( 971777: Parat). Miūra IV 4.33 is ‘Tua’ ( attix 3€). min समाज रक्षति सामाजिकः , नगरं रक्षति नागरिकः .

FOUND 191;

254

History of Dhrermusrāstra.

houses and fields that were to pay (or were not to pay ) taxes, to record tlie number of persons belonging to the four varuas, the number of persons that were farmers, cowherds, traders, labourers or slaves, the number of two-fonted or four footed animals and the extent of money or forced labour, of duties (tolls &c.) and fines to be levied, the number of males and females among the families, the number of children and old persons, their occupations, their ( peculiar ) customs ( caritri) and their incoine and expenditure. It would be noticed how elaborate were the provisions prescribed by K. for the preparation of a complete census of the capital as well as of the rural area.

*In the B. I. edition (1884) of the Kāmundakiya-uitisāra by Rajendrala! Mitra with a com. compiled by three Pandits the word Kautalya is explained as follows: ‘Kutu’ means ‘ghata’: ( with affix lic) Kitala’ means one who stores only as much coru as fills a jar and Kautalya would mean a descendant of such a person.386 The learned editor of the Arthasāstra in the Trivandrum series, N. M. Ganapati Sastri accepts this (Intro. p. 4 ) and the only authority he cites for Kuutaly’u as a gotra naine is that of a very late lexicon called Nūnūrthārnavasa iksepa of Kesavasvāmnin. It is remarkable that the learned Mabamahopadhyaya prints the wame of the work as Kauṭiliyam and in the opening verse of his commentary also keeps the word Kauṭiliya and in the first sentence ( of the coin). also prints the author’s name as Kautilya, on p. 23 in the last verse of the first chapter he reads “Kautilyena krtam śāstram’, again on p. 27 he prints’ catasra eva vidya iti Kautilyah’, on p. 33.neti Kautilyah’ and on p. 39’ Artha eve pradhāna iti Kautilyah’. It is difficult to believe that the great Mahama. hopadhyaya, who had till then editel 80 works and who bad two mss. of the work in Tamil characters and one in Telugu characters, printed the author’s name as Kautilya by sheer carelessness (unuvudhand, as he states in his Sanskrit In troduction ). If such an experienced and learned Pandit is

… * This occurred to the author after all otbor inattory about Kaurilyn

were finished and so that matter has been placed at the end. 2:26 कुटो घटः तं धान्यपूर्ण लान्ति संगृह्णन्ति इति कुटलाः कुम्भीधान्या इति

प्रसिद्धिः । अत एव तेषां कुटलानामपन्य कौट यः विष्णुगुप्तो नाम तद्वंशे सः ght award i Mr. D. B. Diskalkar rufors to ono inscripipo pet Ganesar near Dholka duted in Vikrama-sani vnt 1201

1. D.) which I be says ) in line 9 reads “kantlya’:

STITUT

FOUNDEI

1917

1.4. The Arthrostro of Kautilya

255

careless aud writes the word as Kautilya many times instead of Kautalya (which his three mss. supported as he says ) it is easy to believe that some later scribes purposely changed the word or carelessly wrote it as Kautalya. The form Kautalya makes its appearance in some works and inscriptions after the Ilth or 12th century A. D. This was probably due to later writers’ unwillingness to hold that the great Canakya who helped Candragupta to drive away the Greeks from India and wrote an excellent work on Politics should have borne such an opprobrious name as Kautilya. But the word Kautalya makes hardly any sense. Manu (IV. 7-8) recommends that Brāhmaṇas should not amass wealth, should not have more corn than what is contained in a granary of bricks or that they should be kumbhidhanya or possess only as much grain as would suffice for three days ( for the family and servants ) or only for one day. Yāj. ( I. 124 and 128 ) provides that a good brāhmana shonld have only as much stock of grains as would suffice for one year ( for family &c) and should not go in for a Soma sacrifice if he has less or should have as much grain as would be contained in a granary or contained in a Kumbhi or as would last for three days or one day. These ancient smytis (Manu IV. 8, YĂj. I. 128) provide that the more penurious a brāhmaya is the more lie becomes praiseworthy or should be more honoured. The commentators differ about the meaning of Kusūladhānya and Kumbhi-dhanya (vide Kullūka on Manu IV. 7). Kumbhidhānya means either one who has in store as much corn as would last for six months (Medhātithi ) or as would last for six days (Govindarāja ). But no ove uses the word kutadhanvah or chatadhānyah. Kumbhi is a technical word in Manu and YĀj. Therefore, to take lutule as Kumbhidhānya is not only far-fetched but unwarranted. Besides, the Puranas ( e. g. Matsya and Vāyu), Bāna bhatta, Mudrārāksusa, and Bhavabhūti ( who employs’ the words- Kutila-Daya-nisnāta manasām’) point to Kautilya as the name and no one has shown that Kautalya occurs in early Inscriptions (though Kautilya occurs as a gotra in early inscriptions from the 7th century A. D. ). Vide Danda viveka of Vardhamāna Pp. 134-135 for a discussion of the meaning of Kumbha ( it winds up by saying ’nānārtha em Kumbhaśabdaḥ)’.

In the Sāntiparva ( 243. 2-3 ) it is stated that there are four ways of mainteuance for i brūhmana householder, via

POORA

256

History of Dharmaśāstri

may be Kusūladhānya or Kumbhadhānya or he may be a

Asvastana’i. e. storing only as much corn as would suffice for a day or he may follow the way of Kapota birds and that each one of these ways is superior to each preceding one. The Manusmrti (IV. 7-8) mentions four ways of living for a brāhmana viz. Kusūladhānya, Kumbhidhānya, Tryahaihiku (one storing only as much corn as would suffice for three days for the family and servants) or he may be asvastanika’ (not storiny even for the next day ). The Manu-smrti (in IV. 4-6, states that a brāhmana householder may follow for his livelihood the method of rta (i. e. collecting with his fingers grains that have fallen down in a field or on a public way or collecting the fallen pods of grain ) or the method amrtı ( grain yot without asking ) or of mito ( collecting alms by begging) or of premrta, ( method of agriculture ) or by sutyan rton (i.e. traile); but a brahmana should not follow Svavrtti ( doy’s way i. e. serving or labouring for another). Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 127 ( where also the words Kusuladhanya and Kumbhidhānya are used ) explains that” kusūla means Kosthaka and is a measure for corn equal to twenty drons and Kumbhi is half of that and quotes a half verse ( Daśadroni smrtā Kumbhi Kusūlo dvi gunastataḥ, ityabhiyuktopadeśāt ). (In VIII. 3-20) Manu provides the punishment of vudha (either whipping, cutting of a limb or death ) as the punishment for a thief who steals more corn than ten Kumbhis. Viśvarūpia on Yaj. I. 127 (Vol. 1 p. 104 of T. S. S.) explains that Kusula is Kosthaka and is a measure of corn equal to twenty dronas and Kumbhi is half of that and quotes a verse ( Daśa dronāh smṛtā Kumbbi Kusūlo dvigunastatah ). Ksirasvāmin on Amarakosa men tions Kudava, Prastha, ĀŅhaka, Droưa and Khāri as measures, parimāras ), quotes a verse, stating four Palas are equal to Kudava, four Kudavas are equal to prastha, four prasthas are equal to ūdhaka, cight ādhakas are equal to droṇa and the quantities of these measures differ in different countries i. e. in some countries four ādhakus are equal to drona and twenty dronas inake a Kumbha. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 265 quotes Manu VIII. 320 and remarks that Kumbha is equal to five thousand pular. A Kumbha or Kumbhi was a large measure in any case and not a mere jar, as M. M. Ganapatisastri says without any autlalarity Therefore, from kuṭa (a jar), one cannot jump to the condinsion that kutala would mean Kumbhidhinya or Kumbhadham

FOUNDED 7