________________
106
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ APRIL. 1918
as explained by Vâtsyâyana in Nyâyadarśana I. 1. 29 do not quite correspond with our knowledge of these systems.6
We saw above that Kautilya in his enumeration of Philosophical systeins passes over Vaiseșika and Nyâya ; this must evidently be due to their not existing at his time. He does not mention the Mimâmså, because he must have considered it not as a systematic Philosophy (Anvilniki, but as a branch of study belonging to Theology. He does not indeed mention it expressly in his concise survey of Theology (Trayi ) in Adhyâya. 3:
The four Vedas and the Itihasa veda along with the six Vedângas." But we may assume that the Purva Mimâmpsâ (Adhvara-Mimâmsa) was included as a subsidiary branch of Kalpa
especially of the Srauta Sätras) 17 under this Vedânga. Kamandaki who belongs to the school of Kautilya mentions the Mimamsa by name :
aigâni vedas catvâro mimâmsâ nyâyavistarah
dharmasastra purânam ca trayi 'dam sarvam ucyate II One thus sees that Kautilya's enumeration of what belongs to Theology did not go much into details; that even the Purana and Dharmasastra belong to it, follows from his explanation of Itihasa, p. 10. Had he given a similar account of the Vedangas he would certainly have mentioned the Purva Mimâmså. But whether the Uttara Mimâ əsa, the Vedanta existed as a school of Philosophy is doubtful. Because the Sútra, as I have shown elsewhere,' can scarcely be older than the 3rd century A.D. But on the other hand it mentions a succession of teachers 19 from which we can conclude that a school of the exegesis of the Upanisads already existed in early times. This be as it may, there was for Kautilya no occasion to mention the Uttara Mimâmsa as this also must be reckoned as pertaining to Theology.
Still a few words regarding the Buddhistic Philosophy by which I here understand, of course, not the dogmatic speculations of the canon 20 but metaphysical and epistemological cheorising, such as the Kşanikaváda or the doctrine of the momentariness of existence, against which the whole Philosophy of later times had to wage a bitter war. Had this doctrine, which must have required at least as much acuteness for being maintained, as its opponents. evinced in refuting it, been in existence at the time of Kautilya, it is quite conceivable that he, having recognised the infidel Lokayata as a systematic Philosophy, would not have denied the same recognition to a heretical system, if it only had deserved the name of Philosophy (Anviksiki). Such an inference, however, must not be drawn. Because a real statesman like Kautilya could easily come to terms with the theoretical unbelief of Brihaspati as long as there were no practical consequences to follow from it. It is not, however, reported that Brihaspati wanted to set aside the political and social institutions resting on Brahmanical groundwork, to maintain which was, according to Kautilya, the highest duty of a prince. But the Buddhists and Jainas took up another standpoint with regard to this important question, and that must have been the reason why this Brahman writer on state-craft ignored their Philosophy.
** Cf. P. Tuxen, Yoga : Copenhagen, 1911, p. 10 ff. 17 SBE., XXXIV, p. XII.
15 JAOS., XXXI, p. 29. 19 Deuseen, System des Vedanta, p. 24.
01 Kautilya had considered these worth his trouble to know he must have regarded them as different branches of heretical Theology. Ho, however, recognised the Brahmanical Theology, the frayt, as a vidyd worthy of study. Of. Mane XII. 96,
ya Vedabahyab frutayo yas on kadoa kudayah sarvas ta niqphalah protya tamonitha hi tah emptab 11
