Indian Antiquary Vol 47

SR No.: 032539
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 386
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 169

JUNE, 1918]
ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE KAUTILIYA
Now, what do we know in reality about a school of the Kauțiliyas? The solitary fact which could be adduced in favour of its postulation is that Kâmandaki, the author of the Nitisara, calls Visuugupta, i. e. Kautilya, his guru (II 6). In this instance guru can clearly not be taken in its strict sense; for, since Kâmandaki (as was shown above 1911, p. 742) can at the earliest be placed [835] in the third century A.D., he could not have been a contemporary of the minister of Candragupta. In other words, in Kâmandaki's mouth guru signifies either the Great Master of the Science or the paramparâgura. But the latter appears on his own saying not to have been the case. For, after praising Visņugupta and his deeds in the introductory verses of his work (I 2-6), he proceeds to say:
durianât tasya sudrio vidyânâm paradysvanaḥ | râjavidyâpriyataya samkṣiptagrantham arthavat || 7 || upârjane pâlane ca bhûmer bhumisvaram prati
yat kimeid upadekṣyâmo râjavidyâvidâm matam ||8 ||
159
"From out of the teaching (darsanat = sástrût C.) of this sage, whose gaze has penetrated to the deepest fundament of all sciences, shall we, as friends of the Science of Kings, teach only a small part concerning the acquisition and preservation of territory on the part of the prince, abridged in form, but of like contents (arthavat, C.: artha(ta)s tu távún eva yasya tat), to which the masters of the Science of Kings have given their assent." As Kamandaki in this instance scribes the attribute samkṣiptagrantha to his work, therefore, contrasted with it, the original that served as the source must needs be called vistṛtagrantha, with which only the Kautilya could have been meant. This, undoubtedly, he means by darsana, as indeed also Vaisesika, and Nyaya-Darsana are the usual designations of these two Sutras. Our conclusion that the source used by Kâmandaki was the Kauțiliya is supported by his quotation II, 6: vidyai catasra evai 'ta iti no gurudarśanam, which is almost identical with Kautilîya, p. 6, catasra eva vidya iti Kautilyaḥ. In any event in Kamandaki we find no reference to âgama or âmnaya as we indeed might expect if he had learnt the doctrines of Kautilya not from his work, but in his school," i.e. if Kautilya had been his paramparáguru.
To estimate, however, the relation of Kautilya to Kumandaki adequately, we must draw attention to two facts that are hinted at by Kamandaki himself in the verses translated above. In the first place it is to be noted that he, in addition to the authority of Kautilya, appeals to the consensus of the savants of the science (râjavidyavidan malam), that is to say, he takes into consideration [836] other authorities, older and newer, when their doctrines have received general recognition. Thus we can explain divers points of difference between Kamandaki and Kautilya as, for example, those dealt with above 1911, p. 742. A further instance concerns the doctrine of the mandala (political sphere') and its constituents to which Kautilya, p. 259, refers very briefly without mentioning any authorities, obviously as a matter of little practical value 5 But here was a field for idle theorists. Kamandaki cites VIII, 20-41 a great number of different theories, in some cases giving the names of their exponents. Thus it follows that he is not a
XI, 68 Kâmandaki refers to the views of Kautilya concerning the number of ministers in the Council of State (mantrim mantramandale): yathasambhavam ity ange; cf. Kaut., p. 29 yathasamarthyam itt Kautilyah. His including Kautilya under the anye would not be intelligible, if he had belonged to a School of the Kautilyas. But in the mouth of a compiler who, in addition to his chief authority had consulted others as well, it is unobjectionable. On this question see the immediate seque!.
5 Interesting is Manu's procedure in this respect. VII, 156 he teaches, what according to Kamandaki, VIII, 28 is the view of Usanas, and VII, 157 that of the Manavas (ib. 35). Thus we have here a combination of the two views, which we may expect to find in the Bhrguprokta Manusmrti, Beyond this, however, no direct connection of Manu with the doctrines of the Manavas communicated by Kautilya is demonstrable, see above 1911, p. 743.