________________
108
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ APRIL, 1918
recognises the existence of the soul and leads it to salvation. The idea obviously is that only that Philosophy which at the same time is Atma Vidya bas a claim for recognition. In this way not only was Lokayata excluded, which Kautilya had recognised, but also the Buddhistic systems which probably arose as dangerous opponents of Brahmanical Philosophy only after Kautilya's time, in the centuries immediately before and after the beginning of our era. In order to defend itself, the Brahmanical Philosophy assuuned the roll of Jñanamârga, "the way of Salvation depending upon Philosophical knowledge." This means exactly the same as the demand that the Philosophy should also be an Atma Vidya. It shows that in the authoritative circles of Brahman society a decided movement had started in favor of exclusively orthodox views.
This transformation had already taken place when Kâmandaki, belonging to the school of Kautilya, wrote his Nitisára. While discussing the four Vidyâs in the second Sarga, he says:
ânvikşikî at mavidyâ syâd ikşaņât sukhadulkhayoh
îkşamâņas tayâ tattvam harşaśokau vyudasyatill "The Philosophy must be an Atma Vidya inasmuch as through it one understands the nature of pleasure and pain ; ( the prince ) realising the truth from it, overcomes exultation and grief."
Prof. C. Formichi discussed the question of the age of Kamandaki's Vitisara at the XIIth International Congress of Orientalists held at Rome ("Alcune osservazioni sull'epoca del Kamandakiya Nitisära," Bologna 1899 )and showed that Kâmandaki was com paratively late a contemporary of Varahamihira or a little older). From his arguments, which I supplement in details, the matter seems to stand as follows :-While enumerating the Ministers Kamandaki mentions, in IV, 33 (tådfk samvatsaropy asya jyotihsastrarthacintakah 1 praénâbhidhânakušalo horâgaạitatattvavit II). The astrologer after the Purohita, whereas Kautilya concludes his remarks regarding the Ministers with the latter without referring to the astrologer; and does not at all mention the Mauhúrtika along with the ministers, but places him in the same rank with the Physician and the head-cook (p. 38). During the interval between Kautilya and Kamandaki Greek astrology (Hord) came in vogue and the astrologer came to stand high in the esteem of kings, as the “Great Seer Garga" testifies :
Kftsnangopaigakubalam horagaạitanaishikam yo na pûjayate raja sa nasam upagacchati | yas tu samyag vijânâti horâganitasamhitäh
abhyareyah sa narendreņa svikartavyo jayaişiņa II According to this, KÁmandaki must have lived at the earliest in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. The date so determined explains also the fact, that the proof given by Kamandaki for the existence of the Soul, I. 20 agrees in general with Nyâya Darśana I. 1. 10 and Vaiseşika Darsana, III, 2. 1, and his proof for the existence of the 'inner sense' (Manas) I. 30 agrees almost literally with Nyâya Darsana, I. 1. 60 (cf. Vai eşika Darsana, III. 2.1). For, as I have shown elsewhere, 25 the Nyâya Darsana in the form in which it is now before us, cannot well be placed earlier than the 3rd century A.D. But it may be pointed out that Kâmandaki combines these Nyâya and Vaišeşika ideas with those that are borrowed from Sankhya and Yoga (1. 28, 30b to 35), and thus he prepares an eclectic philosophy in usum delphini. On the other hand Kautilya * Brhataamhitd adhy. 2.
25 JAOS., XXXI, p. 9ff.
