________________
11
mation, for at dei hiyd 191 244-81142T HU: 34GER:', it is implied that the ministers always suggest crooked ways to their lords oferta 372f4a, gif maa, tadH (?), p.26). In the same book, Bāṇabhatta describes Cāņakya as nrśassa, krūra and nirghrņa (i.e. malicious, cruel and pitiless) (Solferta 3792114, af rad,
dhi (?), p.4).
Though in the works of Dandin and in the Pañcatantra, the references to Kautilya are found, we cannot draw a conclusion that they possess a background of thorough study of the Kauțilīya Arthaśāstra. At the very beginning, the pañcatantrakāra enumerates the śāstras as, a FITOT HOICIA, 378f91FaIO AURUCIA, कामशास्त्राणि वात्स्यायनादीनि ।'
If we carefully study Viśākhadatta's Mudrārākşasa, a totally political play dedicated to Cāņakya-Candragupta and Rākṣasa, we come to know Viśākhadatta's deep study of the Arthaśāstra, but at the same time, it creates adverse impact by his famous terminology, Hilferu: goosufa: l’. Cāņakya's egoist remarks, the impropriety in addressing 'vrşala’ to the king Candragupta, the pseudoconflict with Candragupta in the third act and so many other things are quite eloquent to suggest the growing disregard toward Cāņakya's intelligent crookedness. More details are given in a separate chapter written on the Mudrārākṣasa.
The growing impact of smộti literature, particularly the Manusmrti (Mānava-dharma-śāstra) and the Yājñavalkya-smrti were the last blow on the studies of Arthaśāstra. The Kathāsaritsāgara and the BỊhatkathāmañjarī depicted Cāņakya as a well-versed brahmin in the rites of magical lores. Silently the important topics of the Arthaśāstra, lost their popularity and negative side came forward.
