________________
157
had not underlined the crookedness or wickedness of Caṇakya. When broadly comprehended, it would be seen that the 'kutilamatitva' of Caṇakya/Kautilya is noted down by the Śvetambaras and Digambaras after the 12th century A.D. We have already observed that, in the brahmanic literature the signs of disregard for Cāṇakya's is seen from the 11th-12th century onwards, when the dharmaśāstras overpowered the legacy of the Arthaśāstra.
The various small incidents noted down in the Avaśyaka and Niśītha-cūrṇis about Cāṇakya, are totally neglected by Hariṣeṇa. He had not incorporated these small accounts in his biography. Three reasons can be given for this -
(i) He should have thought that these accounts are fanciful, artificially created and added wilfully to Caṇakya's biography by the Śvetambara writers.
(ii) He neglected the stories totally because of the strong secterian bias against the authenticity of the Svetambara literature.
(iii) He was not ready to accept the relationship of guru-sisya between Canakya and Candragupta Maurya depicted in the Svetambara literature. In his Cāṇakya-muni-kathā, Hariṣeṇa had never mentioned Candragupta Maurya, instead he mentions :' by using the pronoun in third person singular.
In the 'Bhadrabāhu-kathānakam' (Kathā No.131; p.317 of Bṛhatkathā), Hariṣena presents a story of Bhadrabahu (probably the second Bhadrabāhu famous as the niryuktikāra) and Candragupta, probably a 'gupta' king and not a 'maurya' king. The Candragupta belonging to the gupta dynasty, accepted dīkṣā and was renamed as Viśākhācārya. He went to dakṣiṇāpatha along-with Bhadrabāhu (IInd). In the Bhadrabahu-kathānaka, not
